City of Buckeye TSP Final May 2026-compressed.pdf
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
700471 characters
May 2026
May 2026
Page I
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The City of Buckeye extends its sincere appreciation to all individuals and organizations who
contributed to the development of this Transportation Safety Plan. We acknowledge the dedication
and expertise of city staff, regional partners, public safety officials, and community stakeholders
whose insights and collaboration were essential in shaping a comprehensive and forward-looking
strategy. Special thanks are given to residents and local businesses for their valuable input, which
helped ensure that this plan reflects the community’s priorities and needs. The City also recognizes
the contributions of the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) and the Arizona
Department of Transportation (ADOT) for their participation and coordination related to roadway
systems within the Buckeye Municipal Planning Area, as well as the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) for its guidance and resources throughout this process. Together, these collective efforts have
laid a strong foundation for improving transportation safety and enhancing quality of life for all who
live, work, and travel in Buckeye.
MAYOR
Eric Osborn
CITY COUNCIL
Tony Youngker - Council District 1
Jamaine Berry - Council District 2
Curtis Beard - Council District 3
Patrick Hagestad - Council District 4
Craig Heustis - Council District 5
Clay Goodman - Council District 6
CITY STAFF
Doug Sandstrom - City Manager
John Willett - Deputy Director of Transportation Program
Anissa Gerard - City Traffic Engineer
Craig Sharp - Transportation Engineer
Rob Roach - Grant Program and Procurement Manager
Courtney Gomez - Grant Program Administrator
John O’Halloran - Communications Director
Charles Bezio - Deputy Chief, Buckeye Police Dept.
Gary McGeough - Cmdr. Buckeye Police Dept.
CONSULTANT TEAM
Y2K Engineering LLC.
Kimley-Horn
Engineering Mapping Solutions
Page II
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1: Plan Overview ......................................................................................
Chapter 2: Data Analysis .....................................................................................
Chapter 3: Safety Strategies ..............................................................................
Chapter 4: Implementation & Monitoring .......................................................
Appendices
Appendix A: Existing Plan Review ................................................................................................
Appendix B: Crash Analysis ..........................................................................................................
Appendix C: Predictive Risk Assessment .....................................................................................
Appendix D: Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary .........................................................
Appendix E: Policy and Process Gaps and Recommendations ..................................................
Appendix F: Phase 2 Community Engagement Summary .........................................................
Appendix G: Strategies and Actions ............................................................................................
Appendix H: Toolbox Safety Countermeasures and Benefits ...................................................
Appendix I: Tiered Project List ....................................................................................................
01
11
31
47
A-1
B-1
C-1
D-1
E-1
F-1
G-1
H-1
I-1
Page III
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
GlOSSARY OF TERMS
AADT – Annual Average Daily Traffic – The average number of vehicles that travel on a roadway
segment in both directions over the course of a year.
Action – A specific, implementable step associated with a strategy and intended to achieve a
transportation safety improvement.
ADOT – Arizona Department of Transportation – The state agency responsible for planning,
designing, operating, and maintaining Arizona’s state highway system and transportation
infrastructure within ADOT right-of-way. ADOT facilities are treated as a distinct roadway
environment throughout the plan.
ADT – Average Daily Traffic – The total number of vehicles that pass a location over a period of
time, divided by the number of days in that period.
ATSPMs – Automated Traffic Signal Performance Measures – Data-driven tools used to monitor
and evaluate traffic signal operations, including signal timing and progression along corridors.
Buckeye MPA – Buckeye Municipal Planning Area – The broader geographic planning area
evaluated by the Transportation Safety Plan, including incorporated areas and future growth
areas used for long-range planning and safety analysis. The plan evaluates conditions across
the Buckeye MPA even where roadway jurisdiction belongs to ADOT or MCDOT.
CMF – Crash Modification Factor – A multiplicative factor used to estimate the expected change
in crashes after implementing a specific safety countermeasure. CMFs are used to communicate
anticipated safety benefit. CMF Clearinghouse: https://www.cmfclearinghouse.org
Context-Sensitive Implementation – An approach that applies safety strategies and
countermeasures based on roadway conditions, surrounding land use, jurisdictional
responsibilities, and project-specific needs rather than as blanket treatments across the entire
city.
CRF – Crash Reduction Factor – A value that represents the expected percentage reduction in
crashes associated with a safety countermeasure.
CRFB – Circular Rapid Flashing Beacon – A pedestrian crossing device using circular flashing
indications to alert drivers to crossing activity. See also RRFB.
Crash Risk Factors – Conditions or characteristics of a roadway, user population, land use
pattern, or operating environment that increase the likelihood or severity of crashes.
Page IV
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Crash Type – A classification describing the general manner in which a crash occurred, such as
angle, rear-end, left-turn, sideswipe, or single-vehicle. Crash types are defined according to the
Arizona Crash Report Forms Instruction Manual.
DDI – Diverging Diamond Interchange – An interchange design that temporarily shifts traffic to
the opposite side of the roadway to reduce conflict points and improve safety and operations.
Development Context – The surrounding land use and roadway setting used to determine
where an action or countermeasure is appropriate, such as developed areas, undeveloped
areas, or ADOT facilities.
DPS – Arizona Department of Public Safety – The state agency responsible for highway patrol
and emergency response.
EB/WB/NB/SB – Directional travel designations: Eastbound, Westbound, Northbound, and
Southbound.
FHWA – Federal Highway Administration – A division of the United States Department of
Transportation responsible for national highway programs, roadway safety guidance, proven
safety countermeasures, and the CMF Clearinghouse.
First Harmful Event – The first point of injury or damage in the sequence of events in a crash.
HAWK – High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk Beacon – A commonly used name in Arizona for
a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB), a pedestrian-activated traffic control device used to stop
traffic to provide pedestrians the right-of-way to cross the road.
HFST – High Friction Surface Treatment – A pavement treatment that improves skid resistance
and reduces crash risk, especially at rural curves, ramps, intersections, and crossing approaches.
HRN – High Risk Network – A network of roadway segments and intersections identified
as having elevated risk for serious injury or fatal crashes based on systemic risk factors and
composite scoring, not just past crash frequency.
HRN Score – A composite score used in the predictive risk assessment to rank and prioritize
roadway segments based on weighted risk factors associated with severe crashes.
ITS – Intelligent Transportation Systems – Transportation systems that use sensing,
communications, control, and data technologies to improve operations, safety, and traveler
information.
Jurisdictional Responsibility – The ownership, maintenance, and decision-making authority
assigned to the agency responsible for a roadway or facility, such as the City of Buckeye, ADOT,
or MCDOT.
Page V
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
KABCO – Crash Severity Scale – A crash injury severity classification system used by law
enforcement and transportation professionals: K for fatal injury, A for serious injury, B for minor
injury, C for possible injury, and O for property damage only or no apparent injury.
KABC Crashes – Injury Crashes – All injury crashes, excluding property-damage-only crashes.
KSI – Killed or Seriously Injured – Refers to crashes involving fatalities (K) and serious injuries
(A) on the KABCO scale. The plan uses KSI as a core performance and prioritization metric,
including crash analysis, goal setting, and project prioritization.
KSI People – The number of people who are fatally or seriously injured in crashes at a location or
within a defined area. A single crash can result in more than one fatality or serious injury; thus,
KSI People is a different number than KSI Crashes. This terminology is equivalent to “fatalities
and serious injuries.”
LILO – Left-In, Left-Out – An access management treatment that channelizes and potentially
restricts movements at a driveway or minor intersection to right turns and left turns into and
left turns out of the site or side street only, reducing conflict points.
LOSS – Level of Service of Safety – A safety screening concept that compares estimated or
predicted crashes on similar facilities with observed crash frequency to identify locations with
high potential for safety improvements.
LPI – Leading Pedestrian Interval – A traffic signal timing strategy that gives pedestrians a
head start before vehicles receive a green indication, potentially reducing pedestrian-vehicle
conflicts.
MAG – Maricopa Association of Governments – The regional planning organization that
coordinates transportation planning, funding, and related programs for Maricopa County and
portions of Pinal County.
MCDOT – Maricopa County Department of Transportation – The county agency responsible
for planning, design, operation, and maintenance of roadways in unincorporated Maricopa
County.
MCSO – Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office – Th e co unty law enforcement agency involved
in enforcement and emergency response coordination for transportation safety efforts in
unincorporated areas.
MPA – Municipal Planning Area – The geographic planning area used by the City to evaluate
existing and future transportation needs, including incorporated and future growth areas. The
Buckeye TSP evaluates safety conditions across the Buckeye MPA.
MUTCD – Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices – The national standard for traffic control
devices, including signs, signals, pavement markings, and related applications.
Page VI
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
NHTSA – National Highway Traffic Safety Administration – The federal agency that develops
vehicle and behavioral safety guidance.
PDO – Property Damage Only – A crash severity category describing crashes that do not involve
injury or fatality.
PHB – Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon – A pedestrian-activated traffic control device that uses
flashing and solid indications to stop traffic for people crossing the street. PHB is the current
formal term; HAWK is a commonly used alternate name in Arizona.
Post-Crash Care – One of the Safe System categories focused on incident response, emergency
coordination, clearance efficiency, and actions that reduce the consequences of crashes after
they occur.
PROWAG – Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines – Federal accessibility guidelines for
pedestrian facilities in public rights-of-way.
RCUT – Restricted Crossing U-Turn – An intersection treatment that restricts direct crossing
and some left-turn movements, requiring downstream U-turns to reduce conflicts and improve
safety.
Roadway Environment – A classification used in Buckeye’s crash analysis and strategy
framework to distinguish between developed areas, undeveloped areas, and ADOT right-of-
way. This classification helps identify context-sensitive safety patterns and applications.
RRFB – Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon – A pedestrian crossing device that uses rapidly
flashing rectangular LED indications to increase driver awareness and yielding compliance at
crossing locations. See also CRFB.
SRTS – Safe Routes to School – Programs, policies, and infrastructure improvements intended
to make walking and biking to school safer and more comfortable for children.
SSA - Safe System Approach – A human-centered approach to roadway safety that anticipates
human mistakes, recognizes human vulnerability, and uses layered, redundant safety measures
to reduce the likelihood and severity of crashes.
Safety Countermeasure – A design, operational, policy, enforcement, or educational treatment
intended to reduce crash frequency or crash severity.
Self-Enforcing Road Features – Physical design elements that encourage drivers to naturally
adopt safe speeds and behaviors without relying on active enforcement or signage. These
include treatments such as narrowed travel lanes, roundabouts, raised medians, pedestrian
refuge islands, speed humps and cushions, raised crosswalks, and other horizontal deflection
measures where appropriate. These features are intuitive, making the intended speed feel
natural, and are designed to align with the surrounding land use and roadway context.
Page VII
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Strategy – A broad direction or approach used to address an identified safety issue.
Systemic Safety Approach – A method of identifying and addressing crash risk across the
broader network by focusing on recurring risk factors and roadway characteristics, rather than
only locations with a high crash history.
TIM – Traffic Incident Management – A coordinated, multi-agency or multi-department
approach to safely and efficiently detect, respond to, manage, and clear traffic incidents.
Toolbox – A collection of safety countermeasures supporting implementation of the plan by
linking context-sensitive treatments to specific Action IDs, crash types, costs, and expected
safety benefits.
Transportation Safety Plan (TSP) – A comprehensive, data-driven plan that identifies safety
trends, risk factors, strategies, and actions to reduce fatalities and serious injuries across the
transportation system. The TSP integrates crash analysis, systemic risk assessment, stakeholder
input, and context-sensitive solutions to guide investments, policies, and programs that
improve safety for all users.
TWLTL – Two-Way Left-Turn Lane – A shared center lane used by vehicles traveling in both
directions to make left turns.
USDOT – United States Department of Transportation – The federal department responsible
for national transportation policy, safety programs, and SS4A funding.
Vulnerable Road Users (VRUs) – A person traveling without the protective enclosure of a
vehicle and therefore at greater risk of serious injury or death in a crash, including pedestrians
and bicyclists.
Page 1
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
CHAPTER 1
CHAPTER 1:
Plan
Plan
Overview
Overview
Page 1
Page 1
Page 2
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Railroad
Parks/Open Forest
Downtown Buckeye
Buckeye Planning Area
Gila River Basin
Buckeye Airport
Project Area
Analyzed
Future L303 Segment
Main Buckeye Analysis Area
Sun City Festival
Analysis Area
Teravalis
Tartesso
Verrado
Skyline Regional
Park
MC 85
MC 85
Sun Valley Pkwy
Sun Valley Pkwy
Buckeye
Lower Buckeye Rd
Lower Buckeye Rd
Broadway Rd
Broadway Rd
Yuma Rd
Yuma Rd
Southern Ave
Southern Ave
Van Buren Rd
Van Buren Rd
Perryville Rd
Perryville Rd
Jackrabbit Trl
Jackrabbit Trl
Verrado Way
Verrado Way
Dean Rd
Dean Rd
Rainbow Rd
Rainbow Rd
Apache Rd
Apache Rd
Miller Rd
Miller Rd
Rooks Rd
Rooks Rd
Turner Rd
Turner Rd
Wilson Rd
Wilson Rd
Palo Verde Rd
Palo Verde Rd
Bruner Rd
Bruner Rd
Johnson Rd
Johnson Rd
Watson Rd
Watson Rd
Indian School Rd
Indian School Rd
Thomas Rd
Thomas Rd
McDowell Rd
McDowell Rd
Camelback Rd
Camelback Rd
Sundance
White Tank
Mountain
North Maricopa
Mountain Wilderness
Signal Mountain Wilderness/
Woosley Peak Wilderness
Coyote Ridge
Sun Valley Pkwy
Sun Valley Pkwy
Citrus Park
Estrella Mountain
Regional Park
Estrella
Dells
Wintersberg
Phoenix Valley West
Dixie
Surprise
Goodyear
Baseline Rd
Baseline Rd
0
1
2
3
4
5
Miles
Figure 1: Buckeye
Transportation Safety
Plan Project Area
Source: City of Buckeye,
Arizona, Esri, TomTom,
Garmin, SafeGraph,
GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/
NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land
Management, EPA, NPS,
USDA, USFWS
Page 3
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Welcome to Buckeye!
Welcome to Buckeye!
When people think of Buckeye, Arizona, they may picture a quiet western town surrounded by farmland and
distant mountains. But the reality of Buckeye today tells a much different—and more dynamic—story.
Beyond our incorporated boundary that covers 400 square miles, the Buckeye Municipal Planning Area (MPA)
covers a staggering 639 square miles. Buckeye is comparative in size to the land area of the City of Houston,
TX, and over 100 square miles larger than our next-door neighbor, City of Phoenix (US Census Bureau, 2023).
Within its boundaries, Buckeye includes a historic downtown, growing suburban neighborhoods, farmland,
desert landscapes, and natural open spaces. With a significant amount of undeveloped land, the city is well-
positioned for continued growth and development.
...We are a community
What began with the Clanton family as a group of 19 people (including 10 children) in the 1870s, Buckeye has
an expansive history that has seen the city grow from a small farming community with only 6,500 residents
in 2000 to a robust and booming center of commerce and recreation with over 114,000 residents as of
2024 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2024). Today, Buckeye is home to over 20 schools serving students from Pre-K
to 12th grade, supported by 9 school districts (Buckeye Valley Chamber of Commerce, 2026). The city also
features two public libraries, three recreation centers, several senior living and assisted care facilities, and
a growing selection of dining options (City of Buckeye, n.d.). Annual community events, including the well-
known Buckeye Days, add to the city’s local character. With so much to do and the anticipated substantial
future growth, people of all ages are proud to live, work, and play in Buckeye.
As Buckeye continues to grow, it remains a place where people of all ages can live, work, and enjoy a high
quality of life. From young students to retired residents, everyone has a place in Buckeye, and EVERYONE
deserves to travel our roadways without the risk of preventable, life-altering crashes.
Page 4
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
...We are Economically Diverse
While farming still plays a major role in Buckeye’s economy,
the city has seen exponential growth of diverse businesses and
employment opportunities.
Buckeye is emerging as a major center for distribution and
logistics companies with access to major interstates/highways,
over 16 miles of Union Pacific Railroad, a 700-acre municipal
airport, and is a gateway to the Phoenix Metro area. Many large
companies such as Walmart already operate large distribution
centers out of Buckeye. Advanced manufacturing has also found
a home in Buckeye. In 2024, Rehrig Pacific opened a state-of-
the-art manufacturing facility, and businesses such as Duncan &
Sons Lines, Cardinal Glass, Parker Fasteners, CanAm Steel, and
Clayton Homes have called Buckeye home for many years (City
of Buckeye, n.d.).
We continue to attract new business and employment
opportunities of all sizes to Buckeye. With this expansion comes
increased usage of the transportation network from commuters,
suppliers, and freight. Heavy freight vehicles have unique needs
when it comes to roadway design such as requiring infrastructure
that supports increased weight limits, roadway geometry that
supports efficient and optimal movement, and improved signage
all while implementing safe speeds.
A safe and efficient transportation system in
Buckeye is essential to supporting Buckeye’s
economic activity—benefiting employees, employers,
customers, and the entire community.
Picture
...We are Active
Buckeye is home to Skyline Regional Park, an 8,700-acre mountain
preserve that offers residents and visitors access to scenic desert trails,
hiking routes, and open space for outdoor recreation. The city is also
a growing destination for mountain biking and features a continually
expanding network of multi-use trails and pathways. In addition to
sidewalks, new developments often provide pathways and trails that,
when built out, will create a connected trail network allowing easy
multimodal access throughout Buckeye.
People who walk and bike within and between the off-street network
and the roadway network require additional consideration to ensure
that they are safe. Pedestrians and bicyclists, who are the most
vulnerable roadway users, are at higher risk for serious injury
or death IF they are involved in a motor vehicle crash.
Picture
Page 5
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
& We are Growing...
Buckeye is one of the fastest growing cities
in the United States. As Arizona’s largest city
geographically, and with only a 14% build-out,
Buckeye continues to be an attractive destination
for new residents. Since 2000, Buckeye’s
population has grown by approximately
1,730%. This rapid growth is expected to
continue, with the city projected to nearly double
in size—reaching close to 300,000 residents
by 2040 as shown in Figure 2. To support such
rapid growth, Buckeye has developed several
development plans including the Downtown Area
Specific and Gila River Corridor (El Rio District)
plans, with multiple master planned communities
planned or in a construction phase (City of
Buckeye, 2025).
Rapid growth presents new challenges for
Buckeye’s transportation system. More roadway
users result in an increased chance of
vehicle crashes. While Buckeye moves from a
small town to a city that has hundreds of miles
of roadway, we have experienced a negative
growth trend: roadway safety. As shown
in Figure 3, the increase in the frequency of
roadway crashes actually outpaced population
growth from 2019-2023.
From 2019 to 2023, a total of 4,427 crashes
were reported in the City of Buckeye, that
included 52 fatal crashes and 133 serious injury
crashes, totaling, 185 KSI (Killed or Seriously
Injured) crashes. The current loss of community
members through vehicle crashes, coupled with Buckeye’s future growth, highlights the need to work to
change this trend, and ensure a safe transportation network for the future. Being proactive in applying proven
safety countermeasures and developing guidelines to prevent crashes before they happen is imperative.
Figure 2: Projected Buckeye Growth (2020-2040)
2020
50K
100K
150K
200K
250K
300K
400K
350K
2040
Population
Employment
Residential Units
Figure 3: Crash Frequency vs Population Increase
(2019-2023)
2019
40k
50k
60k
70k
80k
90k
110k
100k
2023
Population
Crashes
300
400
500
600
700
800
1000
900
+38
38%
2019
2023
Population
Crashes
+37
37%
4,427
Total Crashes
185
241
Fatal & Serious Injury
Crashes
People Killed
or seriously injured
Page 6
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
THE PLAN
This Transportation Safety Plan (TSP) was born from the desire to address the current and future safety
needs of the community as Buckeye continues to grow. It will establish a culture of safety through collaboration,
by helping Buckeye residents recognize that everyone has a role and responsibility for implementing this
culture. The TSP is the City’s roadmap toward eliminating traffic deaths and serious injuries and develops
a process for identifying high-risk locations in the City’s street network, recommends both location-specific
and citywide safety solutions, and prioritizes these improvements based on effectiveness, efficiency, equity,
and community input. The plan not only addresses existing safety challenges but also guides the design and
construction of future roadways to meet higher, safer standards from the outset.
In total, this plan is the culmination of 18 months of in-depth work from City staff and consultant teams
working together to craft a plan that balances the safety needs of all residents, visitors, and businesses.
Creating the Plan
In 2023, the City of Buckeye successfully applied to the United States
Dept. of Transportation (USDOT) to request $600,000 in funding for a
citywide safety action plan as part of the federal Safe Streets For All
(SS4A) grant program. The key work efforts and deliverables noted in
the grant agreement are summarized as:
•
Analyze data to identify patterns and understand contributing
factors.
•
Set up an interdepartmental task force.
•
Identify projects eligible for safety funding.
•
Identify proven, high efficacy safety solutions to reduce serious
injury and fatal crashes and improve safety for all road users.
•
Garner leadership support for continued investment/support.
•
Collaborate with residents and businesses to ensure the plan
reflects community needs and is implementable.
In early 2025, the city began the initial work of informing the public
and gathering input on existing conditions, community priorities,
analyzing crash data, and developing a set of goals to guide the
project to completion.
Planning Synthesis
To begin the process of developing goals and objectives for the TSP,
the city conducted a planning synthesis which starts by recognizing
existing and previous planning efforts at local, regional, state, and
national levels. The goal was to gain an understanding of existing
vision statements, goals, objectives, recommendations and priorities, and any related performance criteria
and metrics. Reviewing these plans revealed common themes, connecting elements, related analysis, as well
SS4A Grant Award
2023 – US Dept. of Transportation
awards the City of Buckeye a
grant for $600,000.
Project Kickoff
December 2024
Data & Crash Analysis
January – July 2025
Phase I - Community &
Stakeholder Engagement
February – May 2025
Strategy Development
June – November 2025
Phase II – Community &
Stakeholder Engagement
August – November 2025
Project Identification &
Implementation
October 2025 – February 2026
Plan Adoption
May 2026
Page 7
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
as recommendations for specific safety related projects. The
plans reviewed are listed in Table 1 and detailed in Appendix
A. Section 3 of this plan identifies specific recommendations
that were integrated into the final strategy list.
In reviewing this group of documents, five initial themes
emerged:
•
Work with the natural environment
•
Reduce speeds in neighborhoods
•
Plan for substantial future growth
•
Safety is a top priority
•
Prioritize multimodal connections
Consideration of the Safe Systems Approach
There are five key elements of the federal Safe System
Approach:
1. Safe Road Users
2. Safe Speeds
3. Safe Roads
4. Safe Vehicles
5. Post-Crash Care
Under the lens of these five elements, guidance themes,
strategies, and policies were reviewed to gain an understanding
of what Buckeye is currently addressing and where additional
strategies may be required to bolster areas not adequately
covered with current plans.
In addition to the deeper analysis of existing Buckeye work
efforts with the Safe System Approach lenses, a work session
that was held with the project management team provided an
opportunity to discuss alignment of the Safe System Approach
principles with City’s values and consideration of which
components of the Safe System approach need attention.
Highlights from this discussion include:
•
This is where Buckeye wants to be in the future.
•
Focus on safe roads and post-crash care.
(Continued on next page)
Local Planning Efforts
Buckeye Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Buckeye ITS Strategic Plan
Buckeye in Motion Transportation Master Plan
Buckeye Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
Buckeye Speed Cushion Policy
Buckeye Transit Master Plan
Engineering Design Standards: Transportation
Buckeye General Plan 2040
Downtown Buckeye Specific Area Plan
El Rio Design Guidelines and Planning Standards
El Rio District Area Plan
Regional/State Planning Efforts
MAG - Momentum 2050 RTP
MAG Complete Streets Guide
MAG - Strategic Transportation Safety Plan
ADOT - Complete Transportation Guidebook
2050 ADOT LRTP
Valley Metro 2016 Buckeye Transit Plan
ADOT - Bicyclist Safety Action Plan
ADOT - AZ Strategic Highway Safety Plan
MAG - Active Transportation Plan
National Planning Efforts
USDOT Safe System Approach
Vision Zero Network
USDOT SS4A Objectives and Requirements
6 Es of Safety
USDOT National Roadway Safety Strategy
FHWA’s Proven Safety Countermeasures Initiative
Table 1: Existing Planning Efforts Reviewed
Page 8
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
•
If we can address the future of safety on the build out
of the transportation system, it would have a positive
effect on the overall budget from the Police and Fire
Departments on reducing the demand, because the
system would be safer and have less people getting
killed or seriously injured in crashes.
•
This plan will stand as a daily reminder that Buckeye is
becoming more safety aware.
•
Safer vehicles may not equal safety for people outside
of the vehicle.
Community Engagement
An integral part of the planning process is gathering input
from the community on pressing issues, priorities, and their
feedback on proposed solutions and strategies developed
during the course of this project.
This plan included two phases of community engagement:
Figure 4: USDOT Safe Systems Approach
SA
FE
TY
I
S
PR
OA
CT
IV
E
R
ES
P
O
NS
IB
IL
IT
Y
IS
S
HA
RE
D
HU
M
A
NS
A
RE
V
UL
NE
R
AB
LE
RE
D
UN
D
A
NC
Y
IS
C
R
U
CI
A
L
DE
AT
H
AN
D
S
E
RI
O
US
I
N
JU
RI
E
S
A
RE
UN
A
C
CE
PT
A
BL
E
H
U
M
AN
S
M
AK
E
MI
S
TA
KE
S
Safe
Road
Users
Safe
Vehicles
Safe
Speeds
Safe Roads
Post-
Crash
Care
SAFE
SYSTEM
APPROACH
Phase 1: Discovery and Analysis
Phase 2: Strategy Review
Phase 1 focused on understanding the
current transportation system from the
community’s perspective, as it relates to
safety. The users of the network are the
best reporters of safety issues because
they have firsthand, often daily experience.
The Goals of Phase 1 engagement were to:
•
INFORM and EDUCATE the public on
the project
•
GATHER INPUT from Buckeye
residents about safety concerns,
their experience with the existing
transportation system, how it
affects their travel, which modes
they use and for what purpose, and
ideas they have for the future.
Phase 2 focused on presenting the
proposed
strategies
developed
after
Phase 1 to the public and receiving input
and feedback on prioritization, level of
agreement
The Goals of Phase 2 engagement were to:
•
GATHER FEEDBACK from Buckeye
residents about proposed
strategies, if they agree/disagree
with proposed measures, and how
they would prioritize investments
and focus areas.
Page 9
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
VISION / GOALS / OBJECTIVES
From the work efforts described in this chapter, the City developed the following overall vision for the City of
Buckeye Transportation Safety Plan:
Complementing this vision, the following goals and objectives form the foundation for what this plan aims
to achieve:
GOAL 1:
Advance a safety culture where both the City and all road users work together to reduce serious
crashes through responsible design and behavior
Objective 1:
Identify the most effective educational methods focused on reducing the severity and frequency of traffic crashes.
GOAL 2:
Plan and build safety improvements for all types of travel so serious injuries and deaths don’t
increase faster than the population.
Objective 1:
Establish cost-effective roadway design guidelines that prioritize safety across all travel modes.
Objective 2:
Integrate safety as a core consideration in Buckeye’s long-term transportation and land use planning efforts.
Objective 3:
As Buckeye changes from rural to urban, provide intersection and pedestrian crossing solutions that are designed
for safety and safe driving behavior.
Objective 4:
Identify high-risk locations through a data-driven High Risk Network (HRN) screening process to proactively guide
safety improvements.
Objective 5:
Apply context-sensitive safety solutions that respond to the function and character of different roadway types—
arterials, collectors, and locals—and land use settings, including rural, suburban, urban, activity centers, and main
streets.
“Buckeye will move toward the eventual goal of zero fatalities
and serious injuries through a Safe System Approach”
Page 10
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
GOAL 3:
Target high-risk behaviors – such as speeding, distracted driving, impaired driving, and red
light running – to reduce serious injury and fatal crashes
Objective 1:
Study crashes linked to risky driving behaviors to inform strategies that influence safer choices on the road.
GOAL 4:
Improve road safety through coordinated efforts among transportation, engineering, police,
and other City departments—grounded in shared data, cross-functional collaboration, and
meaningful public engagement
Objective 1:
Create an internal, cross-departmental task force to review crash data and collaborate on work efforts (engineering,
enforcement, education, engagement, etc.).
Objective 2:
Utilize input from the community to identify top areas of concern to craft implementable solutions.
GOAL 5:
For the City and its partners, establish intra-agency and inter-agency coordination and
collaboration processes and procedures that promote road safety
Objective 1:
Identify and implement internal process improvements that align with prioritized road safety strategies.
Objective 2:
Identify key agency partners, establish a regular meeting schedule, and develop shared strategies to advance
coordinated road safety efforts.
Page 11
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
CHAPTER 2
CHAPTER 2:
DATA
DATA
ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS
Page 11
Page 12
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Since 2019, Buckeye has experienced a 37.8%
increase in the number of crashes on our
roadways, just exceeding the 37% population
increase during the same time frame, further
highlighting the need for this plan here and now.
Crashes by year/severity are shown in Figure 5.
This section will present the crash data collected
in the initial phases of this project, which laid the
groundwork for developing effective strategies
to counter the trends seen here. A detailed crash
analysis can be reviewed in Appendix B.
From 2019 to 2023...
52 fatal crashes and 133 serious injury crashes
were reported in the City of Buckeye, totaling
185 KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured) crashes.
There were 40 collisions with pedestrians and
25 bicyclist collisions. 108 motorcycle crashes
happened from 2019 to 2023, 11 resulting in
fatalities. An annual average of 885 crashes
per year were reported during the 5-year
study period, equating to more than two
crashes per day, every day.
Between 2019 and 2023, 241 people lost their lives or
241 people lost their lives or
have been seriously injured
have been seriously injured on Buckeye’s streets.
52
133
40
25
108
Fatal
Crashes
Serious Injury
Crashes
Pedestrian
Crashes
Bicyclist
Crashes
Motorcycle
Crashes
Figure 5: Crashes by Year and Injury Severity (2019-2023)
PDO*
200
400
600
800
1200
1000
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Possible Injury
Minor Injury
Serious Injury
Fatal
*Property Damage Only
476
409
641
845
644
105
75
141
142
151
147
124
138
108
96
28 / 7
20 / 8
33 / 12
28 / 10
24 / 15
All crash data in this chapter is is summarized from the City of Buckeye’s Crash Dashboard tool using 2019-2023 crash data from the Arizona Crash
Information System (ACIS). The geographic area encompasses the Buckeye MPA.
Page 13
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
When
The most crashes occurred in 2022 with 1,149 crashes, while the lowest number of crashes
occurred in 2020 with 620 crashes. The decline in crashes observed in 2020 is likely attributable to the
COVID-19 pandemic, during which stay-at-home orders significantly reduced traffic volumes and overall
roadway exposure. Although KSI crash numbers have remained relatively steady over the study period—
ranging from 28 to 45 annually— the number of fatal crashes has gradually increased, reaching a high of 15 in
2023.
Figure 6 shows the frequency of crashes in
Buckeye by month. The month with the
greatest number of total crashes was
November with 426 crashes, while July saw
the lowest number of crashes with 297 crashes.
There was an increase in the frequency of
crashes during the winter season and a notable
drop-off in the summer. April and November
saw a peak in the crash frequency before
decreasing in the subsequent months. The
greatest frequency of serious injury crashes
happened in April (15 crashes) followed by
January (14 crashes). The highest total
number of KSI crashes (22) occurred in
September (9 fatal crashes and 13 serious injury crashes) followed by April and May.
The distribution of crashes by weekday
is shown in Figure 7. Crashes occurred
most frequently on Fridays, while
the fewest total crashes happened on
Sundays. KSI crashes occurred most on
Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays and least
on Tuesdays.
Evaluating
all
crashes,
the
highest
amount of crashes peaked at two
different times of the day: one hour
in the morning 7:00 to 8:00 am and
two hours in the afternoon from 3:00
to 5:00 pm. The majority of crashes (65%)
occurred under daylight lighting conditions while just over a quarter of crashes (27%) happened under dark
lighting conditions. 8% of crashes occurred in Dusk/Dawn conditions. Crashes were most frequent in the
afternoon and evening hours from 12:00 PM to 8:00 PM. Crashes involving impairment were most common in
the evening and nighttime from 3:00 PM to 4:00 AM. Over half of crashes (54%) involving impairment happened
during dark lighting conditions. KSI crashes occurred steadily throughout the day from 11:00 AM to 12:00 AM
with a peak from 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM. The daily crash distribution by time of day is shown in Figure 8.
400
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
350
300
250
200
150
100
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
450
Figure 6: Crashes by Month (2019-2023)
Non KSI Crashes
KSI Crashes
364
364
14
17
14
21
18
11
12
10
22
13
17
16
326
326
375
375
387
387
345
345
299
299
285
285
331
331
359
359
366
366
409
409
396
396
700
Mon
Tue
Wed
600
500
400
300
200
100
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
800
Figure 7: Crashes by Day (2019-2023)
Non KSI Crashes
KSI Crashes
596
596
20
17
26
27
29
639
639
613
613
648
648
700
700
603
603
32
470
470
34
Page 14
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Figure 8: Crashes by Hour (2019-2023)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
400
Non KSI Crashes
KSI Crashes
35
35
7
1
5
1
3
4
6
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
8
7
5
3
44
44
66
66
102
102
144
144
243
243
183
183
137
137
182
182 191
191
219
219 241
241
294
294
364
364 367
367
284
284
321
321
212
212
185
185
139
139
112
112
77
77
8
10
9
10
12
10
16
16
9
13
9
11
11
9
9
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
16
46
46
54
54
Who
Drivers age 15 to 19 years old made
up the largest group of drivers
involved in crashes, representing
18% of the crashes in Buckeye. The
majority of crashes (56%) involved
male drivers as the driver of Unit 1 (the
driver considered at fault for the crash).
Pedestrians and bicyclists (vulnerable
road users) were involved in 65 crashes,
where a collision between a vehicle
and either a pedestrian or bicyclist
occurred. Pedestrians and bicyclists
aged 10 through 14 represented the
largest group of vulnerable road users
involved in these crashes, with nearly
25% of all pedestrian and bicyclist
crashes involving someone aged 14
or younger. Male vulnerable road users
were more than twice as likely to be
involved in a crash compared to female
vulnerable road users. The distribution
of drivers and vulnerable road users by
age and gender is shown in Figures 9 and
10.
Copyright: 2013 Sean Locke Photography
Non KSI Crashes
KSI Crashes
Page 15
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Figure 10: Pedestrian & Bicyclists By Age & Gender
Female
Male
8369
0-14
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
90+
1
13
4
4
4
5
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
0
5
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
Figure 9: Drivers Considered Most at Fault in Crashes
Female
Male
15-19
20-24
468
8369
216
367
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+
43
242
156
76
63
5
163
146
75
68
311
311
158
128
120
105
46
21
165
185
111
102
80
45
34
26
13
7
11
21
Page 16
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Roadway Environments (Where)
To better understand crash trends across different roadway
environments, crashes within the study area were classified into
three categories: those within ADOT right-of-way, those located in
developed areas of the City of Buckeye, and those
in the more rural, undeveloped areas. Undeveloped
areas within the Buckeye MPA include roadways
owned and maintained by the City of Buckeye as well
as those under the jurisdiction of Maricopa
County (MCDOT). Roadway ownership within
these areas is dynamic and continues to
evolve as development occurs and annexation
expands the City’s boundaries. This contextual
classification is shown in Figure 11 and allows
for more targeted analysis and deeper insights.
ADOT ROW
Developed Areas
Figure 11: Roadway Environments in the
Buckeye MPA (based on data from April 2025)
ADOT RIGHT OF WAY (ROW):
Consists of State Route 85 (SR-85) and Interstate 10 (I-10). The
ADOT study area excludes the I-10 mainline but includes the
traffic interchanges along I-10.
DEVELOPED AREAS:
Refers to portions of the study area that have been ‘built out’,
which typically includes dense residential and commercial
developments. The developed area of Buckeye was
established specifically for this project in coordination with
City of Buckeye staff.
UNDEVELOPED AREAS:
Refers to the parts of the study area that consist primarily
of farmland, agriculture, low-density residential, or open
land. This area typically includes sparse development
with fewer homes and businesses. If the area was not
marked as ADOT or developed, then it was marked
as undeveloped.
While this Transportation Safety Plan evaluates
conditions across the entire Buckeye MPA to provide a
comprehensive understanding of safety trends, the City of
Buckeye does not have direct jurisdiction over roadways
owned by ADOT or MCDOT. As such, coordination with these
agencies was conducted throughout the development of
this plan to ensure a cohesive and collaborative approach to
improving safety across the transportation network.
Source: City of Buckeye, Arizona, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/
NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS
Page 17
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
The
majority
of
total
crashes
occurred in the developed area of
Buckeye (64%). While the majority of
KSI crashes similarly occurred in the
developed area (44%), the ratio between
developed and undeveloped areas (34%)
is less significant, indicating KSI crashes
are more evenly distributed across
all roadway environments in Buckeye
as shown in Figure 12.
As shown in Table 2, crashes involving
pedestrians and bicyclists were also most
common in the developed area likely due
to higher prevalence of these road users in
the developed area. Collisions involving motorcyclists occurred at the highest rate in the undeveloped area
(4%), which, comparatively, account for only 2.2% of all crashes within the developed area. The following
sections explore Where and How crashes occur per roadway environment.
Region
Crash Category
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Total
%
ADOT
ROW
Total Crashes
99
103
180
213
192
787
100%
KSI Crashes
2
6
8
14
10
40
5.1%
Fatal Crashes
1
2
2
4
4
11
1.4%
Pedestrian Crashes
0
0
0
0
1
1
0.1%
Bicyclist Crashes
0
1
0
1
0
2
0.2%
Motorcyclist Crashes
0
3
4
3
5
15
1.9%
Developed
Areas
Total Crashes
486
394
612
744
597
2,833
100%
KSI Crashes
21
11
22
15
12
81
2.9%
Fatal Crashes
2
3
6
4
2
17
0.6%
Pedestrian Crashes
3
9
9
6
7
34
1.2%
Bicyclist Crashes
6
1
5
6
2
20
0.7%
Motorcyclist Crashes
13
10
13
18
7
61
2.2%
Undeveloped
Areas
Total Crashes
127
123
173
192
192
807
100%
KSI Crashes
12
11
15
9
17
64
7.9%
Fatal Crashes
4
3
4
2
9
22
2.7%
Pedestrian Crashes
1
1
0
2
1
5
0.6%
Bicyclist Crashes
1
1
0
1
0
3
0.4%
Motorcyclist Crashes
5
9
5
8
5
32
4.0%
Table 2: Crashes Within Identified Roadway Environments in Buckeye
Total Crashes
KSI Crashes
ADOT ROW
Developed
Undeveloped
64%
64%
18%
18%
18%
18%
34%
34%
44%
44%
22%
22%
Figure 12: Distribution of Crashes per Roadway Environment (2019-2023)
Page 18
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Developed Areas
TOTAL CRASHES:
2,833
KSI CRASHES:
81
FATAL CRASHES:
17
TOP CRASH SPOTS
INTERSECTIONS:
Watson Rd & Yuma Rd: 125 Crashes
Sundance Ave & Watson Rd: 74 Crashes
Verrado Way & Yuma Rd: 60 Crashes
SEGMENTS:
Watson Rd: 104 Crashes
Yuma Rd: 102 Crashes
Miller Rd: 63 Crashes
77
77%
Compared to 73% of KSI Crashes
Intersection
Crashes
Non-Intersection
Crashes
All Crashes
Intersection
Crashes
Non-Intersection
Crashes
KSI Crashes
of ALL crashes in developed
areas occurred within 150
feet of an intersection
75
75%
of ALL intersection crashes
in developed areas were
reported at unsignalized
intersections
Unsignalized Intersection
Signalized Intersection
All Intersection Crashes
59
59%
of ALL fatal crashes in
developed areas occurred at
unsignalized intersections
Unsignalized Intersection
Other
Fatal Crashes
Page 19
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
31%
of all crashes involved a
Young Driver (<25)
79% of KSI Single Vehicle Crashes in
the developed area involved a collision with
a fixed object. Curbs were the most frequently struck object.
Developed Areas - Continued
REAR END
CRASHES
were the most common crash
type among ALL crashes in the
developed area (28%)
were the most common crash
type of KSI crashes in the
developed area (24%)
SINGLE VEHICLE
CRASHES
Resulting in 23 KSI crashes
29%
of all crashes in the developed area involved
Speeding
Resulting in 27 KSI crashes
8%
of all crashes involved
Impairment
Resulting in 18 KSI crashes
Page 20
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
ADOT Right-of-Way
TOTAL CRASHES:
787
KSI CRASHES:
40
FATAL CRASHES:
13
TOP CRASH SPOTS
Watson Rd & EB I-10:
53 Crashes
Broadway Rd & NB SR-85:
42 Crashes
Palo Verde Rd & WB I-10:
41 Crashes
71
71%
Compared to 78% of KSI Crashes
Intersection
Crashes
Non-Intersection
Crashes
All Crashes
Intersection
Crashes
Non-Intersection
Crashes
KSI Crashes
of ALL crashes in ADOT areas
occurred within 150 feet of
an intersection
68
68%
of ALL intersection crashes
in ADOT areas were reported
at unsignalized intersections
Unsignalized Intersection
Signalized Intersection
All Intersection Crashes
69
69%
of ALL fatal crashes in
ADOT areas occurred at
unsignalized intersections
Unsignalized Intersection
Other
Fatal Crashes
Page 21
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
28%
of all crashes involved a
Young Driver (<25)
Running a stop sign was the most
common violation of KSI angle crashes
Followed by Failure to Yield the Right-of-Way
ADOT Right-of-Way - Continued
REAR END
CRASHES
were the most common crash type
among ALL crashes in the ADOT
area (32%)
made up more than half of all KSI
crashes in the ADOT area (53%)
ANGLE
CRASHES
ALL of these crashes occurred on SR-85
Resulting in 10 KSI crashes
32%
of all crashes involved
Speeding
Resulting in 8 KSI crashes
7%
of all crashes involved
Impairment
Resulting in 8 KSI crashes
Page 22
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Undeveloped Areas
TOTAL CRASHES:
807
KSI CRASHES:
64
FATAL CRASHES:
22
TOP CRASH SPOTS
INTERSECTIONS:
Jackrabbit Trl & Yuma Rd: 34 Crashes
West MC 85 & Jackrabbit Trl: 32 Crashes
Beloat Rd & Jackrabbit Trl: 27 Crashes
SEGMENTS:
Old US Hwy 80: 42 Crashes
Baseline Rd: 33 Crashes
MC-85: 32 Crashes
61
61%
Compared to 41% of KSI Crashes
Intersection
Crashes
Non-Intersection
Crashes
All Crashes
Intersection
Crashes
Non-Intersection
Crashes
KSI Crashes
of ALL crashes in undeveloped
areas occurred within 150
feet of an intersection
87
87%
of ALL intersection crashes
in undeveloped areas were
reported at unsignalized
intersections
Unsignalized Intersection
Signalized Intersection
All Intersection Crashes
14
14%
of ALL fatal crashes in
undeveloped areas occurred
unsignalized intersections
Unsignalized Intersection
Other
Fatal Crashes
Page 23
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
29%
of all crashes involved a
Young Driver (<25)
79% of Single Vehicle KSI Crashes
involved impairment - including 5 out of 6
fatalities
Young drivers were present for 3 fatal crashes.
Undeveloped Areas - Continued
Resulting in 17 KSI crashes
27%
of all crashes involved
Speeding
Resulting in 22 KSI crashes
10%
of all crashes involved
Impairment
Resulting in 18 KSI crashes
Single Vehicle Crashes were the most
common crash type among ALL crashes
in the undeveloped areas (40%) AND KSI
Crashes (31%)
Single vehicle crashes involve a vehicle colliding with a fixed object or a
vehicle overturning without hitting another vehicle
Page 24
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Further Context and Comparison
While each roadway environment varies in top crash types and contributing factors, intersections, specifically
unsignalized intersections, are the most common crash locations across all roadway environments with the
exception of KSI crashes in the undeveloped areas. Also common amongst all environments were Speeding,
Young Drivers, and Impairment as the top 3 identified behavioral crash factors.
As the developed area accounts for 64% of all crashes in the study area, any crash type with greater than 64%
is overrepresented in the developed area. This includes rear end crashes, ‘other’ crashes, left turn crashes
and pedestrian and bicycle crashes. As both ADOT facilities and Undeveloped Areas each account for 18%
of study area crashes, crash types greater than 18% are considered overrepresented in these areas. Single
vehicle crashes are overrepresented in the undeveloped area with 38% of single vehicle crashes occurring
there, over twice the rate of all crashes that occurred in this context. Angle crashes and rear end crashes are
overrepresented on ADOT facilities, with 22% and 21% of these crash types respectively occurring in this
context . Figure 13 shows the distribution of crash types across all roadway environments.
Figure 13: Share of Crash Types (2019-2023)
66.3%
66.3%
62.8%
62.8%
47.9%
47.9%
70.3%
70.3%
85.0%
85.0%
80.0%
80.0%
73.7%
73.7%
12.8%
12.8%
14.9%
14.9%
37.7%
37.7%
13.8%
13.8%
13.1%
13.1%
12.5%
12.5%
12.0%
12.0%
20.9%
20.9%
22.3%
22.3%
14.4%
14.4%
15.9%
15.9%
2.5%
2.5%
8.0%
8.0%
13.1%
13.1%
Rear-End
Angle
Single
Vehicle
Other
Left-Turn
Pedestrian
Bicyclist
ADOT ROW
Developed
Undeveloped
Rear-End
Angle
Single
Vehicle
Other
Left-Turn
Pedestrian
Bicyclist
Page 25
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
High Risk Network
A High-Risk Network (HRN) analysis was conducted for this planning process to specifically identify roadway
locations that are anticipated to have a higher propensity for motor vehicle crashes compared
to the broader transportation network in Buckeye. Developing a HRN offers a proactive approach by
identifying areas with increased risk, even if they have not yet experienced a high number of incidents. This
allows for the implementation of safety countermeasures before severe crash patterns emerge, leading with
a safety-first approach.
To identify locations with a high potential for severe crashes in the City of Buckeye, a structured methodology
was used to develop the HRN which is explained in greater detail in Appendix C. The evaluated network
(Figure 14) includes 39% of Buckeye’s paved roads (344 miles, excluding mainline I-10) and accounts for 95%
of KSI crashes within the City. See Figure 16 for a map of the final HRN.
Figure 14: Buckeye Roadways Evaluated for High Risk Network
Sun City Festival
Neighborhood Inset
0
2
1
Miles
4
3
6
5
8
7
Tartesso
Verrado
W Sun Valley Pkwy
W MC 85
W MC 85
Verrado Way
Lower Buckeye Rd
Broadway Rd
Yuma Rd
Jackrabbit Trl
Indian School Rd
Camelback Rd
McDowell Rd
Perryville Rd
Van Buren Rd
Dean Rd
Rainbow Rd
Watson Rd
Apache Rd
Miller Rd
Rooks Rd
Turner Rd
Palo Verde Rd
Bruner Rd
Johnson Rd
307th Ave
Old Highway 80
331st Ave
Southern Ave
Thomas Rd
Baseline Rd
W Beloat Rd
Oglesby Rd
Wilson Rd
Buckeye
85
303
Buckeye
Airport
Downtown
Buckeye
W Sun Valley Pkwy
Buckeye
Planning Area
Skyline Regional Park
White Tank Mountains
Evaluated Network Road Ownership
10
10
Railroad
Downtown Buckeye
Buckeye Planning Area
Buckeye Airport
Future L303 Segment
Schools
Roosevelt Irrigation District Canal
ADOT
City of Buckeye
MCDOT
MCDOT/COB
Other
Source: City of Buckeye, Arizona, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS
Page 26
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Segments
Risk for segments was measured through a risk score, calculated as a weighted score based on the identified
risk factors. For roadway segments, fifteen risk factors were analyzed through five lenses: Crash History,
Downtown Context, Driver Behavior, Road Geometry, and Vulnerable Road Users (VRU) as shown in Figure 15.
The weight assigned to each factor was based on the existing knowledge of conditions that increase the
likelihood of a crash resulting in a higher injury severity. From the weighted risk factors, a composite risk score
was calculated and applied to all segments in the evaluated Buckeye network. Segments with risk scores
above defined thresholds (90th and 95th percentiles) were included in the HRN.
Intersections
For intersections in Buckeye, the HRN analysis used the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Tool
for Network Screening called MAG Intersection Safety Tool (MIST). The tool uses predictive safety
evaluation using custom Safety Performance Functions tailored to the metro-Phoenix region and distinct for
each intersection type. It combines crash data (from the ADOT general database, from 2015 to 2023) with
estimated entering volumes at the intersection. The MAG MIST determines four Levels of Service of Safety
(LOSS) that is based on the comparison of expected crashes and observed crashes:
•
LOSS 1: Indicates low potential for crash reduction
•
LOSS 2: Indicates low to moderate potential for crash reduction
•
LOSS 3: Indicates moderate to high potential for crash reduction
•
LOSS 4: Indicates high potential for crash reduction
The intersections with LOSS 4 were identified as an HRN intersection, with Beloat Road & Jackrabbit Trail, and
Rainbow Road & Sundance Parkway intersections included. These intersections were not included in the MAG
MIST, yet they have 2 or more KSI crashes during the analysis time frame.
Figure 15: Segment Analysis Categories
Vulnerable
Road Users
Proximity to a
park
Proximity to a
school
Proximity to a
community center
Proximity to
transit route
Car free
Driver
Behavior
Posted speeds
Average speeds
Travel Time /
Congestion
Proximity
to alcohol
establishments
Road
Geometry
Road
configuration
Curvature
Density of
intersections /
conflict
Downtown
Context
Downtown
Area
Crash
History
Crash
History
Weight:
15%
Weight:
5%
Weight:
30%
Weight:
30%
Weight:
20%
Page 27
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Sun City Festival
Neighborhood Inset
Tartesso
Verrado
Tier 1
Tier 2
0
2
1
Miles
4
3
6
5
8
7
W Sun Valley Pkwy
W MC 85
W MC 85
Verrado Way
Lower Buckeye Rd
Broadway Rd
Yuma Rd
Jackrabbit Trl
Indian School Rd
Camelback Rd
McDowell Rd
Perryville Rd
Van Buren Rd
Dean Rd
Rainbow Rd
Watson Rd
Apache Rd
Miller Rd
Rooks Rd
Turner Rd
Palo Verde Rd
Bruner Rd
Johnson Rd
307th Ave
Old Highway 80
331st Ave
Southern Ave
Thomas Rd
Baseline Rd
W Beloat Rd
Oglesby Rd
Wilson Rd
Buckeye
10
10
85
303
Buckeye
Airport
Downtown
Buckeye
W Sun Valley Pkwy
Buckeye
Planning Area
Skyline Regional Park
White Tank Mountains
Railroad
Parks/Open forest
Downtown Buckeye
Buckeye Planning Area
Gila River Basin
Buckeye Airport
HRN Intersections & Segments
High Risk Network Intersections
Future L303 Segment
Schools
Railroad
Figure 16: Buckeye High Risk Network
Buckeye’s High Risk Network
Integrating the two evaluations, weighted risk and MIST, allows the HRN to be established as shown in Figure
16. This is comprised of 35 miles of roads and 40 intersections.
•
The identified High-Risk Network is comprised of 73 segments covering 34.8 miles. It represents 43% of
KSI crashes (2019-2023 analysis period). Roadways that are on the HRN include: Miller Road, Yuma Road,
downtown Buckeye, SR-85 crossings, and parts of Baseline Road and MC-85.
•
The High Risk Network segments were divided into two tiers. Tier 1 represents the top 5% segments, and
Tier 2 represents the top 10% segments.
•
Forty (40) intersections were determined to be part of Buckeye’s HRN, 31 that are on Buckeye’s roads, 9 on
Maricopa County’s roads.
Source: City of Buckeye, Arizona, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS
Page 28
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Underserved Communities
An additional step in the safety action plan discovery process is
identifying areas of Buckeye classified as persistent poverty, also
referred
to
as
underserved
communities.
This information is necessary for future SS4A
implementation grant applications to determine
whether proposed projects are located entirely,
partially, or not at all within an underserved
community.
Information was gathered via the USDOT - SS4A
Underserved
Community
Tool.
This
interactive
tool identifies census tracts that are defined as
underserved communities. Figure 17 shows the six
(6) census tracts* in Buckeye that are identified
as
an
underserved community. These underserved
areas account for nearly 50% of the total
area within the Buckeye Municipal Planning
Area.
49 U.S. Code § 6702 (a)(1) - Definition
The term “Area of Persistent Poverty”
means: (A) any county (or equivalent
jurisdiction) in which, during the 30-year period ending
on the date of enactment of this chapter, 20 percent
or more of the population continually lived in poverty,
OR (B) any census tract with a poverty rate of not less
than 20 percent, as measured by the 5-year data series
available from the American Community Survey of the
Bureau of the Census for the period of 2014 through
2018.
Figure 17: Buckeye Underserved Communities
Underserved
Community
*Most census tracts within this
analysis extend beyond the
borders of the Buckeye Municipal
Planning Area and account
for population figures within
neighboring municipalities and
other jurisdictions.
Source: City of Buckeye, Arizona, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph,
GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land
Management, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS
Page 29
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
When asked to indicate which locations have the most safety concerns, intersections were the top area
of concern. Main Roads and Local Streets, and turn-lanes were the second and third most ranked
locations respectively, indicating that there must be strategies that account for the context of the roadway
being addressed, and strategies that are
not just applicable to arterials but that are
either intended for slow speed local roads
or that can be applied system wide.
When asked about the most concerning
behaviors,
speeding
and
drivers
running red lights were ranked #1
and #2 respectively with distracted
driving ranked #3. These three items far
outranked other options, and when given
the option to write-in a response, speeding
still was the most entered response,
indicating a pressing need to address
speeding and other dangerous behaviors
through
a
combination
of
both
infrastructure
and
non-infrastructure
strategies.
When asked what categories of strategies respondents would like the plan to include, improving roadway
design and maintenance, traffic signal operations and enforcement of existing traffic laws ranked
the highest among the eight options listed, indicating that people would like to see solutions that create an
environment that discourages dangerous behaviors.
Community Perspective
Phase 1 of our community engagement process took place between January and March 2025, and was about
understanding the current transportation system from the community’s perspective, as it relates to safety.
The users of the network are the best reporters of safety issues because they have firsthand, often daily
experience. A summary of the first phase of public engagement for this plan is included in Appendix D.
Engaging the community as part of the Discovery Phase of the planning process, allowed input to be
integrated with the crash analysis to provide a comprehensive picture of safety issues that will inform the
strategy development.
679
Survey Responses
426
Map Comments
952
Website Views
Phase 1 Engagement Results:
When asked if they thought Buckeye
streets are SAFE...
44
44% of
respondents
either “disagreed”
or “strongly
disagreed”
27
27%
29
29%
%
Agree
Neutral
Disagree/Strongly Disagree
Page 30
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
The online survey for Phase 1 contained a
mapping activity that allowed participants to
locate and pin areas of concern. The comments
were analyzed for location and what type of
issue or concern was identified. There were
over 420 comments that were grouped into
seven categories: bicycling, driving behaviors,
intersections, schools, streets, turn lanes, and
walking. See Appendix D for maps by category.
Having the comments geographically based,
allowed for cross-evaluation with the High-Risk
Network. In reviewing Figure 18, alignment
between community input and the High-Risk
Network demonstrates the connection of data
and safety concerns identified by the public,
which informs the development of strategies
and solutions.
The locations with the most safety concerns...
Intersections
Main Roads &
Local Streets
Turn Lanes
The most concerning behaviors are...
Speeding
Running Red
Lights
Distracted
Driving
Buckeye
Airport
Sun City Festival
Neighborhood Inset
0
2
1
Miles
4
3
6
5
8
7
Social Pinpoint Comments
Railroad
Parks/Open forest
Downtown Buckeye
Buckeye Planning Area
Gila River Basin
Buckeye Airport
Future L303 Segment
Turn Lane
Driving
Street
Intersection
Tier 1
Tier 2
HRN Intersections & Segments
High Risk Network Intersections
W MC 85
W MC 85
Verrado Way
Lower Buckeye Rd
Broadway Rd
Yuma Rd
Jackrabbit Trl
Indian School Rd
Camelback Rd
McDowell Rd
Perryville Rd
Van Buren Rd
Dean Rd
Rainbow Rd
Watson Rd
Apache Rd
Miller Rd
Rooks Rd
Turner Rd
Palo Verde Rd
Bruner Rd
307th Ave
Old Highway 80
Johnson Rd
331st Ave
Southern Ave
Thomas Rd
Baseline Rd
W Beloat Rd
Oglesby Rd
Wilson Rd
Buckeye
10
10
85
W Sun Valley Pkwy
303
Buckeye
Planning Area
White Tank Mountains
Skyline Regional Park
Downtown
Buckeye
Tartesso
Verrado
W Sun Valley Pkwy
Railroad
Figure 18: Buckeye Community Safety Comments Overlaid on HRN
Source: City of Buckeye, Arizona, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS
Page 31
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
CHAPTER 3
CHAPTER 3:
SAFETY
SAFETY
STRATEGIES
STRATEGIES
Page 31
Page 32
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
The primary purpose of the Buckeye
Transportation Safety Plan is to identify
strategies that the city will enact to
ensure all people, regardless of
mode or ability, can travel safely
on its roadways as our community
grows.
In order to develop a comprehensive list
of safety strategies, seven supportive work
efforts were completed that are shown in
Figure 19:
•
Detailed crash analysis
•
Community Engagement
•
Agency Coordination with Maricopa County
Department of Transportation (MCDOT) and
Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT)
•
An Assessment of Local Policies, Plans, and
Standards/Guidelines;
•
Safe Systems Benchmarking
•
Review and Evaluation of Proven Safety
Countermeasures
•
Predictive Risk Analysis
SAFETY
STRATEGIES
Crash
Analysis
Community
Engagement
Agency
Coordination
Local
Initiatives
Predictive
Risk Analysis
Proven Safety
Countermeasures
Safe
Systems
Benchmarking
Local Initiatives
As shown in Chapter 1, 11 local plans, policies,
guidelines, etc. were reviewed to gain an understanding
of current initiatives and to identify recommendations
for changes to promote improved roadway safety.
From this review, detailed recommendations related
to improving roadway safety are provided in Appendix
E and summarized in Table 3 on the following page.
Recommendations are grouped into four areas:
•
Policies and processes recommended in
previously completed planning documents that
have not yet been implemented by the City.
•
Recommended updates to existing City policies
and processes.
•
Recommended new policies and processes.
•
Projects
Figure 19: Buckeye Safety Strategy Elements
Page 33
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Local Planning Efforts
Recommendations Integrated into Strategy List
Buckeye Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan
Projects: Locations of recommended projects/improvements will be integrated into project
recommendations related to the High Risk Network (HRN).
Buckeye in Motion Transportation
Master Plan
Projects: Locations of recommended projects/improvements will be integrated into project
recommendations related to the HRN.
Buckeye Parks and Recreation
Master Plan
Implement Existing Recommendations: It is recommended that these strategies: Strategy 13.5.16,
13.5.26, 13.5.27, 13.5.30, 13.9.16, 13.9.22, 13.9.25 from the Parks and Recreation Master Plan be
implemented.
Buckeye Transit Study
Projects: Locations of recommended projects/improvements will be integrated into project
recommendations related to the HRN.
Downtown Buckeye Specific Area
Plan (DSAP)
Implement Existing Recommendations: It is recommended that actions and subtasks: Action 7.3.1
Subtask 1, Action 7.3.4 Subtask 1 from the Downtown Buckeye Specific Area Plan be implemented.
Projects: Locations of recommended projects/improvements will be integrated into project
recommendations related to the HRN.
El Rio District Area Plan
Projects: Locations of recommended projects/improvements will be integrated into project
recommendations related to the HRN.
Buckeye 2040 General Plan
Implement Existing Recommendations: Although Policy S-3.5 is being done informally through
City Hall meetings, it is recommended that a programmatic approach be implemented to further
reinforce safety through education programs in the community.
Access Mgmt. Guidelines Technical
Memorandum
Recommend Updates: Integrate the access management guidelines document into the City’s
Engineering Design Standards with recommended modifications, and include a standard detail that
illustrates access spacing standards for various roadway classifications as noted in Appendix E.
Buckeye Speed Cushion Policy
Recommend Updates: Integrate the Buckeye Speed Cushion Policy into the City’s Engineering
Design Standards with recommended modifications, and modify the Speed Cushion detail with
recommendations noted in Appendix E.
Buckeye Engineering Design
Standards
Recommend Updates:
Section 6-1 Transportation Impact Analysis
Section 6-2 Intelligent Transportation Systems
Section 6-3 Street Planning and Design Criteria
Section 6-4 Transportation Traffic Signals
Section 6-5 Signing and Marking
Section 7-1 Street Lighting
Recommend New Policies and Processes:
•
Speed Limit Setting and Management
•
Positive Left-Turn Offsets
•
Midblock Pedestrian/Bicyclist Crossing
The Buckeye ITS Strategic Plan and El Rio Design Guidelines and Planning Standards did not contain specific recommendations for
projects or policies that were integrated into the final list of strategies.
Table 3: Recommendations for Strategy List Integration
Page 34
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Predictive Risk Analysis
A review of current conditions and issues was conducted to identify predictive risks. Extensive national, state,
and local research provides a strong foundation for applying proactive, system-wide safety measures to
reduce crashes in different roadway settings. Building on this research, along with crash data analysis and
local context, ten existing conditions were identified as high-risk factors that could continue to contribute to
crashes if left unaddressed.
Table 4 identifies the current conditions and predictive risks analyzed.
Current Condition for Buckeye MPA
Predictive Risk of Current Approach
Mismatched design context with urbanizing areas, high speeds, wide
roads, disconnected street networks
Increased crash severity, costly future retrofits, and poor compatibility
between land use and roadway function.
Leapfrog development causing infrastructure gaps
Unsafe conditions, long-term infrastructure deficits, and costly catch-
up projects.
First/last-mile gaps in newer areas
Isolated neighborhoods, poor walkability, and future need for costly
infill projects.
Need for low-maintenance, self-regulating intersection control in
outlying areas
Higher crash severity, long-term signal maintenance burden, and
unreliable operations in remote areas.
Long emergency response times in outlying areas
Delayed emergency response, increased crash fatalities, and
diminished public safety.
Limited enforcement presence over large areas
Persistent speeding, limited deterrence, and higher crash risk.
Increased pedestrian and bicyclist exposure
Higher risk of crashes involving vulnerable users, deterring walking
and biking.
Lack of safe crossings on wide arterials
Continued pedestrian injuries and fatalities and public concern over
unsafe crossings.
High proportion of young/inexperienced drivers
Elevated crash rates among young drivers, with long-term safety and
liability impacts.
School traffic issues
Congestion, unsafe pickup/drop-off conditions, and neighborhood
complaints.
Table 4: Predictive Risks
Page 35
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Agency Coordination
As noted in the crash analysis, the roadways and highways that
traverse through the City of Buckeye are owned by three agencies:
Buckeye, MCDOT, and ADOT. Understanding each agency’s
processes, procedures, study efforts, funding, and design
guidelines/standards is essential to establish partnerships and
working relationships to create a safer transportation network
as Buckeye continues to grow.
To prioritize interagency collaboration, Buckeye, MCDOT, and
ADOT participated in three rounds of work sessions. These
sessions were designed to:
1. Review each agency’s roadway design processes, education and communication programs, enforcement
practices, post-crash response, and development requirements.
2. Collect feedback on draft safety strategies.
3. Identify the steps, resources, and commitments needed to implement strategies and projects in this plan.
The results of the first two work sessions are reflected in the application field of each strategy—categorized
as developed areas, undeveloped areas (City of Buckeye and MCDOT), or ADOT right-of-way—and are carried
forward into Chapter 4. While this plan evaluates conditions across the full Buckeye MPA, each agency
maintains independent jurisdiction and authority over its respective roadway system. Coordination with ADOT
and MCDOT occurred throughout the development of this plan, and the City of Buckeye frequently partners
with these agencies through inter-governmental agreements to advance shared safety improvements.
Figure 20: Inter-Agency Work Session
Proven Safety Countermeasures
A goal in developing strategies was to identify proven
work efforts that have positive benefits in reducing
crashes related to the main types, factors, and conditions
related to Buckeye’s crash picture. USDOT is the main
source of countermeasure evaluation through FHWA
studies and resources, the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD), the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) – Countermeasures that
Work, and the Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse
database (CMF Clearinghouse). These resources provide
an effectiveness score per countermeasure, as well as
guidance on cost, application, use and time.
The effectiveness of countermeasures is a key component
used when developing strategies for a safety action plan.
The CMF Clearinghouse and the majority of FHWA’s
resources provide detailed information about the value
and applicability of each countermeasure. An example of
effectiveness and application is shown in Figure 21.
Star Quality Rating
Crash Reduction Factor (CRF)
Value:
67% (This value indicates a decrease in
crashes)
Applicability
Crash Type:
Angle
Crash Severity:
K (fatal), A (serious injury), B (minor
injury), C (possible injury)
Roadway Types:
Not Specified
Countermeasure Name & ID Number
INSTALL A TRAFFIC SIGNAL CMF ID:320
Figure 21: Example Countermeasure Information
Page 36
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Safe Road Users
Safe Road Users focuses on creating conditions that prioritize road users by encouraging
safe and responsible driving and behaviors so all travelers can reach their destinations
unharmed. Reviewing existing plans and policies, there is clear guidance around educating
and encouraging safer travel for the community that includes:
•
Conducting safety programs throughout the community.
•
Proactively enforcing traffic codes and ordinances.
•
Implementing a Safe Routes to School Program.
•
Encouraging mode shifts to walking and biking, and promoting community-wide transit ridership.
•
Continuing to provide options to underserved and disadvantaged communities.
Safe Roads
Safe Roads focuses on the design elements of a roadway which minimize serious injuries if/
when crashes occur. FHWA also defines safer roads as those that encourage safer behaviors
and facilitate safer travel for the most vulnerable users. Safe Roads is the most frequently
addressed Safe System Approach element found within Buckeye’s current policy documents, as summarized
below:
•
Providing safe, accessible, and connected travel
networks and promote all forms of transportation.
•
Working with schools to develop and implement a
Safe Routes to School Program.
•
For new developments, requiring on-site
infrastructure for Vulnerable Road Users (VRU) and
connectivity to the existing system.
•
Collaborating through partnerships and
agreements for maintaining and connecting
maintenance roads for VRU.
•
Designing roadways with physical separation of
VRU to improve safety and establish guidelines for
crossings with motor vehicles.
•
Evaluating opportunities to improve traffic flow by
addressing missing links in the arterial network.
•
Expanding the traffic management center
(TMC) and implement strategic infrastructure to
relay traveler information and improve traffic
operations.
Picture
Safe Systems Benchmarking
The Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program aids the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (USDOT)
National Roadway Safety Strategy and aims to eliminate roadway fatalities through the Safe System Approach.
This approach was used as a lens to review existing plans and documents to identify themes as related to the
five Safe System elements. The final list of strategies was categorized using those of the Safe System
Approach:
Page 37
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Post-Crash Care
Post-Crash Care focuses on enhancing crash survivability by ensuring quick access to emergency
medical care, creating a safe working environment for first responders, and preventing
secondary crashes through effective traffic incident management practices. FHWA emphasizes
the importance of rapid medical response and coordination among emergency services to minimize the severity
of injuries. Effective incident management is crucial for maintaining safety on roadways and minimizing
disruptions:
•
Establishing and monitoring incident response times and standards.
•
Updating Emergency Operations Plan regularly to ensure effective, coordinated response.
•
Planning for strategic placement of first responders, including the siting of fire stations and temporary
apparatus staging in high-demand areas, to reduce response times.
Safe Speeds
Safe Speeds promotes appropriate travel speeds through thoughtful roadway design, consistent
speed-limit policies, education, and targeted enforcement. Reducing excessive speeds helps
align driver behavior with roadway context, improving visibility, reaction time, and overall crash
survivability. Three themes that are within the existing policies related to speed mitigation are:
•
Designing roadways with high pedestrian activity, such as Downtown Buckeye, to support low operating
speeds through strategic geometry, such as narrower travel lanes, tighter curb radii, on-street parking, and
enhanced pedestrian crossings.
•
Incorporating traffic-calming and speed-management principles during roadway design, including features
such as speed cushions, raised intersections, and chicanes.
•
Applying context-appropriate lane widths and cross-section designs to align target, design, and posted
speeds, consistent with FHWA’s Safe System Speed Management Framework and MUTCD (2023) guidance.
Safe Vehicles
Safe Vehicles focuses on vehicle safety systems and features that help prevent crashes and
minimize the severity of injuries and collision impacts. Traditionally, this element has been the
purview of vehicle engineers and manufacturers, and no local policies have been identified to
date. However, as the City grows, it may expand in-house services currently provided by third parties—such
as solid waste collection or emergency medical transport. If the City begins to operate its own fleet vehicles,
it should consider safety-focused vehicle specifications that align with Safe System principles. These may
include:
•
Equipping fleet vehicles with Intelligent Speed Assistance (ISA) systems that provide speed feedback and
compliance alerts.
•
Selecting vehicles with cab-over-engine design or lower hood profiles to enhance driver sight distance and
reduce blind zones for pedestrians and bicyclists.
•
Installing side-guard panels on larger vehicles to prevent severe crashes with vulnerable road users.
•
Outfitting vehicles with advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS) such as automatic emergency braking,
pedestrian detection, and blind-spot monitoring.
•
Implementing fleet safety policies that include regular driver training, vehicle maintenance checks, and
adoption of new safety technologies as they become available.
Page 38
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Community Engagement
Phase 2 of the community engagement process took place between September and November 2025, and was
focused on gathering feedback and comments on the proposed strategy list. Details on Phase 2 community
engagement activities and findings are provided in Appendix F.
In lieu of a standard community
meeting,
the
team
provided
in-person interactions at two
scheduled
community
events,
set up an information table at
Coyote Library for several days,
and distributed engagement materials at a Halloween event. At these events, the project team presented
a shortened list of proposed strategies on poster boards which asked participants to indicate, with stickers,
whether they “Agreed”, “Disagreed”, or were “Neutral” with the strategies. Participants were also asked to
rank the five focus areas from highest to lowest priority using sticky notes.
An online survey set up on the Social
Pinpoint platform, was conducted
between
September
29th
and
November 17, 2025 that presented a
select list of 25 proposed strategies
and allowed participants to indicate
whether they Agreed, Disagreed,
or were Neutral towards each. The
survey also prompted participants to
enter their own strategies that they thought should be included in the list.
Respondents overwhelmingly supported most strategies, with
average agreement scores typically between 2.7 and 3.0 on a 3-point
scale. Strongest agreement appeared in strategies related to Safe Roads
for People Walking & Biking, particularly Safe Routes to School (SRTS),
complete streets design, and separated bicycle facilities, while Safe Intersections strategies such as protected
left turns, lighting improvements, and enhanced signage also received high marks. Participants contributed
extensive written feedback emphasizing the need for better lighting, more traffic enforcement, improved
signage, additional signals, clearer lane markings, and infrastructure to support pedestrians and cyclists.
Across all focus areas, open-ended comments consistently highlighted three themes: inadequate
lighting, insufficient enforcement, and roadway designs that cannot keep up with rapid population
growth.
When asked to prioritize the focus areas, participants ranked SAFE INTERSECTIONS as the highest priority,
followed by Safe Roads and Safe Speeds. Safe Roads for People Walking & Biking and Safe Users were ranked
lower but still received significant support.
248
Survey Responses
82
In Person Conversations
Page 39
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Safety Strategies
The final approved list of strategies is presented on the following pages. Each strategy is housed under one
of the five Safe System Approach categories (Safe Roads, Safe Road Users, Safe Speeds, Post-Crash Care,
and Safe Vehicles). Each strategy is presented alongside the relevant roadway environment (Developed,
Undeveloped, ADOT Facilities), the issue the strategy addressed, and its application in the City of Buckeye.
Many of the strategies identified in this plan build on ongoing efforts already being implemented by the
City of Buckeye and its partner agencies. Strategies described as “continue” or “enhance” reflect existing
programs, policies, and practices that are already contributing to improved safety outcomes. This
demonstrates the City’s proactive approach to transportation safety and its commitment to continuously
refining and strengthening its efforts over time. While this plan introduces new actions, it also reinforces
and expands upon initiatives already underway.
The full set of strategies and actions, including detailed descriptions and implementation considerations, is
provided in Appendix G. A toolbox of potential safety countermeasures that support the identified strategies
and actions is provided in Appendix H.
SAFE
SAFE ROADS
ROADS
“Designing to accommodate human mistakes and injury tolerances can greatly reduce the severity of crashes that do
occur. Examples include physically separating people traveling at different speeds, providing dedicated times for different
users to move through a space, and alerting users to hazards and other road users.” - FHWA
Strategy
ID
Strategy
Description
Action
ID
Action
Description
Roadway
Environment
Issue
Addressed
Effectiveness
Intersections
1
Reduce crashes and opportunities for speeding by regularly reviewing and refining traffic signal
timing to improve operations and safety. Develop a Traffic Signal Management Plan to guide
proactive adjustments, coordinate timing across corridors, and support ongoing evaluation. Update
signal timing protocols and engineering guidelines as needed to ensure consistent and effective
implementation.
1.1
Continue to review and refine signal timing more
frequently to improve traffic operations and safety.
Develop a Traffic Signal Management Plan to guide
proactive adjustments and standardize signal timing
protocols and engineering guidelines for consistency.
Developed;
Undeveloped;
ADOT Facilities
Rear-End Crashes
15% reduction to 64%
reduction in crashes.
2
Continue to improve safety at stop-controlled intersection locations with frequent failure-to-yield
crashes (context sensitive) by installing red flashing beacons at stop signs; and systematically install
low-cost countermeasures that include: enhanced signage (larger signs, ‘Cross Traffic Does Not Stop’)
and STOP AHEAD pavement markings and signs.
2.1
Install red flashing beacons at stop signs
Developed;
Undeveloped;
ADOT Facilities
Failure-to-Yield
10% to 28% reduction
in crashes
2.2
Systematically apply multiple low-cost
countermeasures at stop-controlled intersections
3
At unsignalized intersections of major roads, continue to install traffic signals to improve control and
reduce failure-to-yield crashes. At unsignalized intersections of minor and local roads, use process
decision guidelines to consider installing reduced conflict intersections: left-in/left-out, median
U-turns, roundabouts, and/or raised medians to simplify movements, reduce conflict points, and
speeds; At unsignalized intersections of roads with a high speed, and failure to yield incidents, use
process decision guidelines to consider installing reduced conflict intersections: left-in/left-out,
median U-turns, roundabouts, and/or raised medians to simplify movements, reduce conflict points,
and speeds.
3.1
Continue to review, study, and install innovative/
unconventional intersection treatment like median
U-turns, restricted crossing U-turns, or raised medians
Developed;
Undeveloped
Speeding;
Failure-to-Yield;
Angle Crashes;
Left-Turn Crashes
5% to 67% reduction
in crashes
3.2
Continue to install traffic signals
3.3
Install high-capacity single-lane roundabout
3.4
Install small single-lane roundabout
4
Reduce angle and left-turn crashes by continuing to install innovative intersection configurations—
such as roundabouts, Restricted Crossing U-Turns (RCUTs) and diverging diamond interchanges
instead of traditional stop control and traffic signals where appropriate. These designs simplify vehicle
movements and reduce conflict points. Update processes, engineering standards and guidelines to
support the selection and implementation of these proven safety countermeasures.
4.1
Continue to install reduced left-turn conflict
intersections such as RCUT, roundabouts, and diverging
diamond interchanges
ADOT Facilities
Angle Crashes;
Left-Turn Crashes
22% to 82% reduction in
crashes
5
Reduce the risk of left-turn collisions at existing signalized intersections by continuing to remove
negative offset left-turn geometry and implement protected-only left-turn phasing at HRN and other
high crash locations. Reduce the risk of left-turn collisions at intersections by improving driver
visibility at intersection corners.
5.1
Continue to -implement protected-only left-turn signal
phasing
Developed;
Undeveloped
Failure-to-Yield;
Angle Crashes;
Left-Turn Crashes
38% to 100% reduction
in crashes
5.2
Continue to install positive left-turn offset / remove
negative left-turn offset geometry
5.3
Continue to remove or relocate visual obstructions
such as signage, vegetation or roadside features at
intersection corners to increase driver visibility
6
Reduce rear-end crashes along rural roadways by continuing to add dedicated left- and right-turn
lanes at uncontrolled access points. These treatments help manage turning movements, reduce
unexpected stops in through lanes and promote safer, more predictable traffic flow.
6.1
Continue to add dedicated left- and right-turn lanes at
uncontrolled access points
Undeveloped
Rear-End Crashes
(along rural roadways)
21% to 30% reduction in
crashes
Page 40
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Sources for effectiveness rating include FHWA Studies & Resources, MUTCD, NHSTA, and CMF Clearinghouse. These resources provide an effectiveness score per countermeasure, as well as guidance on cost, application, use and time.
Table 5: Safe Roads Strategies & Actions
Safe System Category
Strategy Description
Roadway Environment
Issue Addressed
Strategy ID
Number
Figure 21: How to Read This Section:
Effectiveness
Action ID
Action description
Sub-
Category
SAFE
SAFE ROADS
ROADS
“Designing to accommodate human mistakes and injury tolerances can greatly reduce the severity of crashes that do
occur. Examples include physically separating people traveling at different speeds, providing dedicated times for different
users to move through a space, and alerting users to hazards and other road users.” - FHWA
Strategy
ID
Strategy
Description
Action
ID
Action
Description
Roadway
Environment
Issue
Addressed
Effectiveness
Intersections
1
Reduce crashes and opportunities for speeding by regularly reviewing and refining traffic signal
timing to improve operations and safety. Develop a Traffic Signal Management Plan to guide
proactive adjustments, coordinate timing across corridors, and support ongoing evaluation. Update
signal timing protocols and engineering guidelines as needed to ensure consistent and effective
implementation.
1.1
Continue to review and refine signal timing more
frequently to improve traffic operations and safety.
Develop a Traffic Signal Management Plan to guide
proactive adjustments and standardize signal timing
protocols and engineering guidelines for consistency.
Developed;
Undeveloped;
ADOT Facilities
Rear-End Crashes
15% reduction to 64%
reduction in crashes.
2
Continue to improve safety at stop-controlled intersection locations with frequent failure-to-yield
crashes (context sensitive) by installing red flashing beacons at stop signs; and systematically install
low-cost countermeasures that include: enhanced signage (larger signs, ‘Cross Traffic Does Not Stop’)
and STOP AHEAD pavement markings and signs.
2.1
Install red flashing beacons at stop signs where
appropriate
Developed;
Undeveloped;
ADOT Facilities
Failure-to-Yield
10% to 28% reduction
in crashes
2.2
Systematically apply multiple low-cost
countermeasures at stop-controlled intersections
3
At unsignalized intersections of major roads, continue to install traffic signals to improve control and
reduce failure-to-yield crashes. At unsignalized intersections of minor and local roads, use process
decision guidelines to consider installing reduced conflict intersections: left-in/left-out, median
U-turns, roundabouts, and/or raised medians to simplify movements, reduce conflict points, and
speeds; At unsignalized intersections of roads with a high speed, and failure to yield incidents, use
process decision guidelines to consider installing reduced conflict intersections: left-in/left-out,
median U-turns, roundabouts, and/or raised medians to simplify movements, reduce conflict points,
and speeds.
3.1
Continue to review, study, and install innovative/
unconventional intersection treatment like median
U-turns, restricted crossing U-turns, or raised medians
Developed;
Undeveloped
Speeding;
Failure-to-Yield;
Angle Crashes;
Left-Turn Crashes
5% to 67% reduction
in crashes
3.2
Continue to install traffic signals where warranted
3.3
Install high-capacity single-lane roundabout where
appropriate
3.4
Install small single-lane roundabout where appropriate
4
Reduce angle and left-turn crashes by continuing to install innovative intersection configurations—
such as roundabouts, Restricted Crossing U-Turns (RCUTs) and diverging diamond interchanges
instead of traditional stop control and traffic signals where appropriate. These designs simplify vehicle
movements and reduce conflict points. Update processes, engineering standards and guidelines to
support the selection and implementation of these proven safety countermeasures.
4.1
Continue to install reduced left-turn conflict
intersections such as RCUT, roundabouts, and diverging
diamond interchanges
ADOT Facilities
Angle Crashes;
Left-Turn Crashes
22% to 82% reduction in
crashes
5
Reduce the risk of left-turn collisions at existing signalized intersections by continuing to remove
negative offset left-turn geometry and implement protected-only left-turn phasing at HRN and other
high crash locations. Reduce the risk of left-turn collisions at intersections by improving driver
visibility at intersection corners.
5.1
Continue to implement protected-only left-turn signal
phasing where appropriate
Developed;
Undeveloped
Failure-to-Yield;
Angle Crashes;
Left-Turn Crashes
38% to 100% reduction
in crashes
5.2
Continue to install positive left-turn offset / remove
negative left-turn offset geometry
5.3
Continue to remove or relocate visual obstructions
such as signage, vegetation or roadside features at
intersection corners to increase driver visibility
6
Reduce rear-end crashes along rural roadways by continuing to add dedicated left- and right-turn
lanes at uncontrolled access points. These treatments help manage turning movements, reduce
unexpected stops in through lanes and promote safer, more predictable traffic flow.
6.1
Continue to add dedicated left- and right-turn lanes at
uncontrolled access points
Undeveloped
Rear-End Crashes
(along rural roadways)
21% to 30% reduction in
crashes
Page 40
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Sources for effectiveness rating include FHWA Studies & Resources, MUTCD, NHTSA, and CMF Clearinghouse. These resources provide an effectiveness score per countermeasure, as well as guidance on cost, application, use and time.
Table 5: Safe Roads Strategies & Actions
SAFE
SAFE ROADS
ROADS - CONTINUED
Page 41
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Strategy
ID
Strategy
Description
Action
ID
Action
Description
Roadway
Environment
Issue
Addressed
Effectiveness
Segments
7
Continue to install solar-powered dynamic speed feedback signs that alert drivers when they exceed
the posted limit, to reduce speeding and improve driver compliance on roadways on the HRN or
that have known speed-related incidents. Pair these signs with periodic, targeted enforcement to
reinforce safe driving behavior and increase awareness.
7.1
Continue to install solar-powered dynamic speed
feedback signs (temporary or permanent) that alert
drivers when they exceed the posted limit where
appropriate
Developed;
Undeveloped
Speeding
5% reduction
in crashes
8
Reduce single-vehicle crashes by improving roadway visibility through targeted infrastructure
upgrades. This includes continuing to install streetlights at intersections, merge points, and along
high-risk roadway corridors; and enhancing the visibility of signs, signals and pavement markings
along roadway corridors. Where needed, update engineering details, standards and guidelines to
support consistent application of these safety countermeasures.
8.1
Continue to enhance visibility of signs, signals, and
pavement markings along roadway corridors
ADOT Facilities
Single-Vehicle
Crashes
28% to 42% reduction
in crashes
8.2
Install street lights at intersections and merge points
9
Enhance roadway traction to reduce single-vehicle crashes by applying high-friction surface
treatments at curves, intersections and other high-risk locations. These treatments increase skid
resistance and reduce stopping distances, especially under wet conditions. Update engineering
standards and guidance to ensure consistent identification and treatment of priority locations
9.1
Install high-friction pavement and rumble strips
Developed;
Undeveloped
Single-Vehicle
Crashes;
Sideswipes
30% reduction
in crashes
10
Reduce single-vehicle, sideswipe, and head-on collisions by continuing to enhance roadway edge
definition and driver guidance. Widen edge lines to improve visibility and lane keeping, install rumble
strips and/or raised pavement markers at close spacing to alert drivers who drift from the travel lane,
and apply enhanced curve delineation such as chevrons, reflective post panels, and curve warning
pavement markings on horizontal curves. Update pavement marking and signing standards to
ensure consistent application of these countermeasures.
10.1
Continue to install enhanced delineation for horizontal
curves
Undeveloped
Single-Vehicle
Crashes;
Sideswipes
6% to 12% reduction
in crashes
10.2
Widen edge lines
11
On roadways with good pavement quality and right of way availability, continue to improve roadside
safety by widening shoulders per Buckeye’s standard (6-3.207 G of a minimum 10-foot shoulders) in
areas without curbs and expanding the clear zone to reduce crash severity. Where fixed objects like
utility poles cannot be relocated, continue to install protection around object, and/or add signage/
object markers for better driver awareness. Update roadway design standards to support consistent
implementation.
11.1
Widen shoulders and expand the clear zone to reduce
crash severity, providing 10-foot minimum shoulders
in areas without curbs. Where fixed objects like utility
poles cannot be relocated, install object markers for
better driver awareness.
Undeveloped
Hitting fixed
objects;
Rollover crashes
2% reduction
in crashes
12
Revise street light standard to update strategies that improve visibility and reduce nighttime crash
risk by continuing to install streetlights at city intersections, merge points, mid-block and along
roadway corridors that have a history of nighttime crashes or are on the HRN. The lighting standard
update should reflect current safety-focused placement and illumination levels while acknowledging
dark sky preservation initiatives in the Buckeye area.
12.1
Continue to install streetlights at city intersections,
merge points and along roadway corridors with a
history of nighttime crashes
Undeveloped
(City of Buckeye
areas only)
Single-Vehicle
Crashes
53% reduction
in crashes
13
Improve corridor safety and traffic flow by continuing to implement access management strategies
for future roadway development, and on HRN roadway segments to reduce conflict points and
improve driver decision-making. Key strategies include managing the spacing of intersections and
access points, limiting allowable driveway movements—such as restricting to right-in/right-out
and placing driveways on intersection approach corners rather than a receiving corner, which are
associated with fewer crashes. Install raised medians to eliminate across-roadway movements and
provide dedicated turn lanes—including left-only, right-only, or two-way left-turn lanes—to support
safer turning operations.
13.1
Continue to implement access management strategies
related to the spacing, location, and allowable
movements of intersections and driveways
Developed
Rear-End Crashes;
Pedestrian/
Bicyclist Crashes
5 to 56% reduction
in crashes
13.2
Continue to install raised medians
Sources for effectiveness rating include FHWA Studies & Resources, MUTCD, NHTSA, and CMF Clearinghouse. These resources provide an effectiveness score per countermeasure, as well as guidance on cost, application, use and time.
SAFE
SAFE ROADS
ROADS - CONTINUED
Page 42
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Strategy
ID
Strategy
Description
Action
ID
Action
Description
Roadway
Environment
Issue
Addressed
Effectiveness
Vulnerable Road Users (VRU)
14
At intersections and roadway segments with high pedestrian and bicyclist activity, continue to
implement self-enforcing roadway designs and features to naturally slow vehicle speeds and reduce
crash risk. Update design standards (e.g., COB EDS 6-3 Table 1) and create a toolbox of appropriate
strategies, by roadway type, using resources such as the NACTO Urban Street Design Guide to align
with Safe System principles.
14.1
Continue to install self-enforcing road features
Developed
Speeding
41% reduction
in crashes
14.2
Set lower speed limits in areas with high pedestrian/
bicycle activity, supported by an engineering study and
implement design elements to support posted speed
limit
15
ADOT to update the typical cross-section guidance in Section 306 of the Roadway Design Guidelines
(RDG) to better reflect the needs of all users in different land use contexts. Specifically, Section
306.4 'Urban Cross-Sections' should be revised to include separate cross-section templates for
Urban, Suburban and Rural Areas. This update should align with the ADOT Complete Transportation
Guidebook, which provides context-sensitive design principles that accommodate all modes,
including walking, biking and transit. Incorporating these distinctions will help ensure roadway
designs are appropriate for surrounding land use and safety objectives.
15.1
ADOT to update typical cross-section guidance in
Section 306 of the Roadway Design Guidelines (RDG) to
better reflect the needs of all users in different land use
contexts at intersections
ADOT Facilities
Address the needs
of all roadway
users in different
land use contexts
10% to 60% reduction
in crashes
16
Improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists by increasing the number of signalized crossing
opportunities, on roadways with speed limits at 35 mph and over, if identified for future fixed route
transit, has an existing bicycle facility, is identified for a future bicycle facility, and/or connects to
an off-street pedestrian/bicycle facility. Install signalized crossings—such as full traffic signals
or pedestrian hybrid beacons (HAWK/PHBs), or construct grade-separated crossings (bridges/
overpasses or underpasses) to eliminate conflicts; On roadways with speed limits 30 mph and under,
consider installing rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) if identified for future fixed route
transit, has an existing bicycle facility, is identified for a future bicycle facility, and/or connects to an
off-street pedestrian/bicycle facility.
16.1
If warranted, provide more signalized crossings (traffic
signal or HAWK/PHB) on arterials and higher-speed
collectors and RRFBs on lower-speed collectors
Developed
Pedestrian/
Bicyclist Crashes
44% to 59% reduction
in crashes
16.2
Construct grade-separated crossings such as
pedestrian overpasses or underpasses to eliminate
conflicts with vehicle traffic and ensure safe access
across wide or high-speed corridors
17
Improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety at signalized intersections and midblock crossings by
enhancing visibility and prioritizing pedestrian movement. Enhance the visibility of signs, signals,
and pavement markings by updating standards (e.g., COB EDS 6-4.203) to include measures such
as backplates with retroreflective borders. Continue to install dual lighting at each corner of
wide intersections and continue to provide overhead lighting at midblock pedestrian and bicycle
crossings to ensure visibility at night and during low-light conditions. Continue to implement leading
pedestrian intervals (LPIs) at signals in areas with high pedestrian activities, and intersections that are
wide. Update design guidelines to include roadway mid-block crossing applications and guidance
on placement.
17.1
Continue to install dual lighting at each corner of wide
intersections where appropriate
Developed
Single-Vehicle
Crashes;
Pedestrian/
Bicyclist Crashes
15% to 70% reduction
in crashes
17.2
Continue to enhance visibility of signs, signals, and
pavement markings at intersections
17.3
Continue to install overhead lighting at midblock
pedestrian and bicycle crossings
17.4
Continue to provide leading pedestrian intervals in
areas with heavy pedestrian activity
18
Improve safety for people walking and biking and expand transportation options by using the USDOT
FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide (2019) and AASHTO Bicycle Design Guide to upgrade existing bike
facilities to the preferred bikeway type per roadway volume and speed, and update engineering
details, standards and guidelines as needed to ensure consistent and context-sensitive design as the
bicycle network is built out per the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
18.1
Provide shared-use paths or protected bike lanes where
appropriate instead of striped bike lanes for arterials
and higher-speed collectors
Developed
Pedestrian/
Bicyclist Crashes
Up to 55% reduction
in crashes
Sources for effectiveness rating include FHWA Studies & Resources, MUTCD, NHTSA, and CMF Clearinghouse. These resources provide an effectiveness score per countermeasure, as well as guidance on cost, application, use and time.
SAFE
SAFE ROADS
ROADS - CONTINUED
Page 43
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Strategy
ID
Strategy
Description
Action
ID
Action
Description
Roadway
Environment
Issue
Addressed
Effectiveness
Vulnerable Road Users (VRU) Continued
19
Continue to participate in the regional Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program to improve safety and
encourage walking and biking for students traveling to and from school. Incorporate infrastructure
improvements such as crosswalks, sidewalks and traffic calming near schools, and support them
with education, encouragement and enforcement strategies. Coordinate closely with school districts,
to identify safety concerns and prioritize improvements. Use the Arizona School Siting Guidelines,
City of Buckeye Engineering Design Standards, and school development agreements to ensure new
and existing schools are planned with sufficient on-site queuing and multimodal access. Implement
reduced speed in school zones to provide consistent, predictable speed control during school travel
times. Update Buckeye’s policies and design standards to support the long-term success of SRTS
initiatives.
19.1
Continue to participate in the regional SRTS program
and implement reduced speed school zones to provide
consistent, predictable speed control during school
travel times
Developed
SRTS Program
2-3 Stars*;
29% to 45% reduction
in crashes
19.2
Use the Arizona School Siting Guidelines, City of
Buckeye Engineering Design Standards, and school
development agreements to ensure new and existing
schools are planned with sufficient on-site queuing and
multimodal access
19.3
Continue to participate in the regional SRTS program
to implement education, encouragement and
enforcement strategies related to travel to and from
school
19.4
Continue to participate in the regional SRTS program
to implement infrastructure improvements such as
crosswalks, sidewalks and traffic calming near schools
19.5
Continue to participate in the regional SRTS program to
implement local solutions
*For all strategies, star ratings represent the relative effectiveness of non-infrastructure strategies based on available research and anecdotal evidence. These ratings are provided in lieu of a Crash Modification Factor (CMF) when
a CMF from the FHWA CMF Clearinghouse is not available, as CMFs are typically only developed for infrastructure-based countermeasures. Sources for effectiveness rating include FHWA Studies & Resources, MUTCD, NHTSA, and CMF
Clearinghouse. These resources provide an effectiveness score per countermeasure, as well as guidance on cost, application, use and time.
“The Safe System approach addresses the safety of all road users, including those who
walk, bike, drive, ride transit, and travel by other modes.” - FHWA
SAFE ROAD
SAFE ROAD USERS
USERS
Page 44
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Table 6: Safe Road Users Strategies & Actions
Strategy
ID
Strategy
Description
Action
ID
Action
Description
Roadway
Environment
Issue
Addressed
Effectiveness
20
Promote helmet use and safe riding practices for motorcyclists through ongoing engagement
campaigns while reinforcing safety through the continued enforcement of existing laws, including
youth motorcycle helmet requirements.
20.1
Implement a targeted education campaign to increase
motorcycle helmet use and safe riding practices
Developed;
Undeveloped;
ADOT Facilities
Motorcycle
Crashes/Fatalities
2 Stars*
21
Address risky driver behaviors by continuing to develop and implement targeted education
campaigns focused on reducing distracted driving, increasing seatbelt use, and preventing impaired
driving. These campaigns should combine public outreach through media and events with focused
police enforcement (Strategy #24) to influence safer driving habits and reduce crash risk.
21.1
Continue Buckeye's targeted education campaign to:
increase seatbelt use, impaired driving, and distracted
driving.
Developed;
Undeveloped;
ADOT Facilities
Motorists not
wearing seatbelts;
Impaired drivers;
Distracted driving
1 to 4 Stars*
22
Implement Surge Enforcement Operations (intensified, short-term enforcement operations that
can include multiple agencies and departments (enforcement, education, public involvement,
communications, etc.) designed to curb dangerous driving through increased education, awareness,
officer presence and high-visibility traffic stops) twice a year at key locations connected to the High
Risk Network (HRN).
22.1
Implement Surge Enforcement Operations twice a year
at key locations connected to the High Risk Network
(HRN)
General
KSI Crashes
4 Stars*
23
Promote safer walking, biking, micro-mobility, and electric-bikes (e-bikes) use through targeted
education and enforcement campaigns. Continue to conduct outreach through media, schools
and community events to increase awareness of local rules, traffic laws and safe riding practices.
Support these efforts with physical deterrents to reduce unsafe speeds on shared-use paths, youth
helmet ordinances and focused law enforcement engagement in high-activity areas to encourage
compliance and reduce crash risk.
23.1
Continue to implement paid and earned media
campaigns (electronic, print, radio, and broadcast) to
promote public awareness of pedestrian and bicyclist
safety to target audiences.
Developed
Pedestrian/
Bicyclist Crashes
1 to 3 Stars*
23.2
Install physical deterrents to reduce unsafe speeds on
shared-use paths
23.3
Pass youth bike and e-bike helmet ordinance
24
Continue and expand proactive enforcement of traffic laws to deter dangerous driving behaviors and
reinforce safe roadway use. Focus enforcement efforts on high-risk locations and violations—such
as speeding, failure to yield and distracted driving to reduce crash risk and improve compliance.
Align enforcement with safety priorities and complement education (Strategy #21) and engineering
strategies.
24.1
Continue to conduct proactive enforcement of traffic
laws
Developed
Enforcement
4 Stars*
*For all strategies, star ratings represent the relative effectiveness of non-infrastructure strategies based on available research and anecdotal evidence. These ratings are provided in lieu of a Crash Modification Factor (CMF) when
a CMF from the FHWA CMF Clearinghouse is not available, as CMFs are typically only developed for infrastructure-based countermeasures. Sources for effectiveness rating include FHWA Studies & Resources, MUTCD, NHTSA, and CMF
Clearinghouse. These resources provide an effectiveness score per countermeasure, as well as guidance on cost, application, use and time.
SAFE
SAFE SPEEDS
SPEEDS
“Humans are unlikely to survive high-speed crashes. Reducing speeds can accommodate human injury tolerances in
three ways: reducing impact forces, providing additional time for drivers to stop, and improving visibility.” - FHWA
Page 45
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Table 7: Safe Speeds Strategies & Actions
Strategy
ID
Strategy
Description
Action
ID
Action
Description
Roadway
Environment
Issue
Addressed
Effectiveness
25
Continue to refine yellow and all-red clearance intervals at all existing and new traffic signals to
ensure drivers have adequate time to react and stop safely.
25.1
Continue to refine yellow and all-red clearance intervals
at all existing and new traffic signals
Developed
Speeding
8% to 50% reduction
in crashes
26
Utilize context-appropriate vehicle speed limits at intersections through policy, operations, design,
education, and enforcement. Policy efforts can include speed setting policies that incorporate
roadway function as well as environment, land uses, user types, and overall context similar to
complete streets. A complete street design encourages safe driving habits and reduces excessive
speeds.
26.1
Develop speed limit setting guidance in accordance
with Arizona state statutes
ADOT Facilities
Establish a
consistent and
context-sensitive
approach to speed
management
26% reduction
in crashes
27
Reduce travel lane widths to encourage slower driving speed through a variance request upon
appropriate engineering evaluation and justification.
27.1
Continue to allow vehicle lane widths under 12 ft.
through a variance request
Developed
Speeding
24% to 42% reduction
in crashes
28
Conduct a study to test the target speed-setting process on four corridors with high potential safety
risks (e.g., HRN, high pedestrian or bicycle volumes, frequent driveways, on-street parking, or above-
average KSI crash history). Use the 2025 FHWA Target Speed Policy and evaluation of vulnerable
road user activity, conflict points, crash patterns, and operating speeds. The study will determine
recommended target speeds and guide supporting design or operational changes. Findings will help
refine procedures for future citywide application of context-based speed management.
28.1
Conduct a study to test the target speed-setting process
on four corridors with high potential safety risks (e.g.,
HRN, high pedestrian or bicycle volumes, frequent
driveways, on-street parking, or above-average KSI
crash history)
Developed
Pedestrian/
Bicyclist Crashes
26% reduction
in crashes
28.2
Reduce speed limits where test study indicates speed
limits should be reduced
29
Pilot different intersection turning radii designs at intersections and right turn slip lane designs
(including raised crosswalks, additional striping and signing, stop-controlled slip lanes) to understand
impact on vehicle speed, operation, and severe crashes.
29.1
Pilot different intersection turning radii designs at
intersections and right turn slip lane designs (including
raised crosswalks, additional striping and signing, stop-
controlled slip lanes) to understand impact on vehicle
speed, operation, and severe crashes
Developed
Pedestrian/
Bicyclist Crashes
44% reduction
in crashes
Sources for effectiveness rating include FHWA Studies & Resources, MUTCD, NHTSA, and CMF Clearinghouse. These resources provide an effectiveness score per countermeasure, as well as guidance on cost, application, use and time.
POST-CRASH CARE
POST-CRASH CARE
“When a person is injured in a collision, they rely on emergency first responders to quickly
locate them, stabilize their injury, and transport them to medical facilities. Post-crash care
also includes forensic analysis at the crash site, traffic incident management, and other
activities” - FHWA
Page 46
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
*For all strategies, star ratings represent the relative effectiveness of non-infrastructure strategies based on available research and anecdotal evidence. These ratings are
provided in lieu of a Crash Modification Factor (CMF) when a CMF from the FHWA CMF Clearinghouse is not available, as CMFs are typically only developed for infrastructure-based
countermeasures. Sources for effectiveness rating include FHWA Studies & Resources, MUTCD, NHTSA, and CMF Clearinghouse. These resources provide an effectiveness score per
countermeasure, as well as guidance on cost, application, use and time.
Table 8: Post-Crash Care Strategies & Actions
Strategy
ID
Strategy
Description
Action
ID
Action
Description
Roadway
Environment
Issue
Addressed
Effectiveness
30
Address high-severity crash locations on all roadways in Buckeye (including ADOT and MCDOT owned)
by participating in an inter-agency task force to review crash data, identify contributing factors, and
coordinate collaborative safety improvements. The task force should include representatives from
state, regional, and local agencies and meet regularly to align priorities, share data, and implement
effective countermeasures. Update coordination protocols and data-sharing agreements as needed
to support sustained, multi-jurisdictional efforts.
30.1
Create inter-agency task force to review crash data and
collaborate on work efforts as well as publish annual
reports on efforts made and crash trends
Developed;
Undeveloped;
ADOT Facilities
High severe crash
locations on all
roadways
n/a
31
Continue to monitor incident response time standards in accordance with FHWA’s Traffic Incident
Management (TIM) performance measures to improve roadway safety, minimize congestion and
enhance inter-agency coordination. Define and track key TIM metrics, including time of incident
notification, arrival of first responder, roadway clearance time and incident clearance time.
Collaborate with law enforcement, fire, emergency medical services, towing and transportation
agencies to set shared performance goals, conduct after-action reviews and implement strategies
that improve detection, response and clearance efficiency. Use TIM performance data to support
continuous improvement and inform investment in incident detection and response technologies.
31.1
Collaborate with law enforcement, fire, emergency
medical services, towing and transportation agencies
to set shared performance goals, conduct after-action
reviews and implement strategies that improve
detection, response and clearance efficiency
Developed
Incident Response
n/a
31.2
Define and track key traffic incident management (TIM)
metrics, including time of incident notification, arrival
of first responder, roadway clearance time and incident
clearance time
31.3
Use TIM performance data to support continuous
improvement and inform investment in incident
detection and response technologies
Page 47
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
CHAPTER 4
CHAPTER 4:
Implementation
Implementation
& Monitoring
& Monitoring
Progress
Progress
Page 47
Page 48
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
One of the main objectives of the Buckeye Transportation Safety Plan is to identify effective safety
countermeasures, following the Safe System Approach, that can be implemented through a combination
of strategies, actions, and projects. Implementing these countermeasures increases the likelihood that the
number of people killed or seriously injured (KSI) in crashes will be reduced. The City will target a 5%
reduction in fatalities and serious injuries from motor vehicle crashes by 2036, consistent
with a Safe System approach while advancing toward the eventual goal of zero fatalities
and serious injuires.
Implementation of Strategies and Actions
The strategies identified in the previous section have been broken down into a series of actions that can be
implemented by the City of Buckeye and its jurisdictional partners in transportation (ADOT and MCDOT) and
emergency response (Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) and Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO)).
Details for the actions associated with the strategies are organized in Appendix G by Strategy ID and Action
ID, with the first number in the Action ID referencing the Strategy ID. These details include the following items:
•
Timeframe to initiate action – when the action is recommended to start (measured from the time
when the Transportation Safety Plan is approved).
•
Development context group for application – identifies the roadway system components and
ownership where the action is to be applied.
•
Steps for implementation – three-step process recommended for completing the action.
•
Duration to complete – estimated range of time for each individual step to be completed.
•
Lead – the jurisdictional entity anticipated to take the lead on accomplishing the action.
•
Support – supporting jurisdictional entities that are anticipated to help the lead accomplish the action.
•
Funding opportunities – ways in which funding could potentially be obtained to pay the cost of the
action.
•
Notes for implementation – additional information that should be considered in implementing the
action.
The actions are summarized and organized in this chapter by short-term, mid-term, and long-term
timeframes, and within those timeframes, by the following four Safe System Approach elements: safe users,
safe speeds, safe roads, and post-crash care.
Short-Term
Actions
are designed to
provide cost-effective
solutions that can begin
implementation within two
years.
Mid-Term
Actions
emphasize improving the primary
routes utilized by travelers,
such as roadways, sidewalks, or
pathways, and their interactions
with the overall network.
Long-Term
Actions
are larger or more complex
projects that focus on
improving vulnerable road
user crossings and reducing
conflicts at intersections.
Page 49
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
ID
Short-Term Action
Estimated
Cost (2026)
SAFE ROADS
Intersections
1.1
Continue to review and refine signal timing more frequently to improve traffic operations and safety. Develop
a Traffic Signal Management Plan to guide proactive adjustments and standardize signal timing protocols and
engineering guidelines for consistency.
$$
2.1
Install red flashing beacons at stop signs where appropriate
$$
5.1
Continue to implement protected-only left-turn signal phasing where appropriate
$-$$
5.3
Continue to remove or relocate visual obstructions such as signage, vegetation or roadside features at intersection
corners to increase driver visibility
$
Segments
8.1
Continue to enhance visibility of signs, signals, and pavement markings along roadway corridors
$
13.1
Continue to implement access management strategies related to the spacing, location, and allowable movements
of intersections and driveways
$$
Vulnerable Road Users (VRU)
14.2
Set lower speed limits in areas with high pedestrian/bicycle activity, supported by an engineering study and
implement design elements to support posted speed limits
$$$$$$
15.1
ADOT to update typical cross-section guidance in Section 306 of the Roadway Design Guidelines (RDG) to better
reflect the needs of all users in different land use contexts at intersections
$
18.1
Provide shared-use paths or protected bike lanes where appropriate instead of striped bike lanes for arterials and
higher-speed collectors
$$$$$$
19.1
Continue to participate in the regional SRTS program and implement reduced speed school zones to provide
consistent, predictable speed control during school travel times
$
19.3
Continue to participate in the regional SRTS program to implement education, encouragement and enforcement
strategies related to travel to and from school
$$
SAFE USERS
20.1
Implement a targeted education campaign to increase motorcycle helmet use and safe riding practices
$-$$
21.1
Continue Buckeye's targeted education campaigns for: increase seatbelt use, impaired driving, and distracted
driving.
$-$$
22.1
Implement Surge Enforcement Operations twice a year at key locations connected to the High Risk Network (HRN)
$
23.1
Continue to implement paid and earned media campaigns (electronic, print, radio, and broadcast) to promote
public awareness of pedestrian and bicyclist safety to target audiences.
$-$$
24.1
Continue to conduct proactive enforcement of traffic laws
$
SAFE SPEEDS
25.1
Continue to refine yellow and all-red clearance intervals at all existing and new traffic signals
$
26.1
Pilot test speed limit setting guidance in accordance with Arizona state statutes
$
27.1
Continue to allow vehicle lane widths under 12 ft. through a variance request
$
28.1
Conduct a study to test the target speed-setting process on four corridors with high potential safety risks (e.g.,
HRN, high pedestrian or bicycle volumes, frequent driveways, on-street parking, or above-average KSI crash
history)
$$
Table 9: Short Term Actions (1-2 Years)
Short-Term Actions (1-2 years)
Short-term actions are listed in Table 9.
Continued on next page
$0-$100,000
$100,001-$250,000
$250,001-$500,000
$500,001-$750,000
$750,001-$1M
>$1M
$:
$$:
$$$:
$$$$:
$$$$$:
$$$$$$:
Page 50
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Post-Crash Care
30.1
Create inter-agency task force to review crash data and collaborate on work efforts as well as publish annual
reports on efforts made and crash trends
$
31.1
Collaborate with law enforcement, fire, emergency medical services, towing and transportation agencies to
set shared performance goals, conduct after-action reviews and implement strategies that improve detection,
response and clearance efficiency
$
Table 10: Mid-Term Actions (2-5 Years)
Mid-Term Actions (2-5 years)
Mid-term actions are listed in Table 10.
$0-$100,000
$100,001-$250,000
$250,001-$500,000
$500,001-$750,000
$750,001-$1M
>$1M
$:
$$:
$$$:
$$$$:
$$$$$:
$$$$$$:
Continued on next page
ID
Mid-Term Action
Estimated
Cost (2026)
SAFE ROADS
Intersections
2.2
Systematically apply multiple low-cost countermeasures at stop-controlled intersections
$
3.2
Continue to install traffic signals where warranted
$$$$$
3.4
Install small single-lane roundabout where appropriate
$$$$$$
5.2
Continue to install positive left-turn offset / remove negative left-turn offset geometry
$$$
6.1
Continue to add dedicated left- and right-turn lanes at uncontrolled access points
$$
Segments
7.1
Continue to install solar-powered dynamic speed feedback signs (temporary or permanent) that alert drivers
when they exceed the posted limit where appropriate
$$
8.2
Install streetlights at intersections and merge points
$$$
9.1
Install high-friction pavement and rumble strips
$
10.1
Continue to install enhanced delineation for horizontal curves
$ to $$
10.2
Widen edge lines
$ to $$
11.1
Widen shoulders and expand the clear zone to reduce crash severity, providing 10-foot minimum shoulders in
areas without curbs. Where fixed objects like utility poles cannot be relocated, install object markers for better
driver awareness.
$$$$$$
12.1
Continue to install streetlights at city intersections, merge points and along roadway corridors with a history of
nighttime crashes
$$$
13.2
Continue to install raised medians
$$$$$$
Vulnerable Road Users (VRU)
14.1
Continue to install self-enforcing road features
$$$$$$
16.1
If warranted, provide more signalized crossings (traffic signal or HAWK/PHB) on arterials and higher-speed
collectors and RRFBs on lower-speed collectors
$$$$ to $$$$$
Table 9 Continued: Short Term Actions (1-2 Years)
Page 51
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
ID
Long-Term Action
Estimated
Cost (2026)
SAFE ROADS
Intersections
3.1
Continue to review, study, and install innovative/unconventional intersection treatments like median U-turns,
restricted crossing U-turns, or raised medians
$$$$$$
3.3
Install high-capacity single-lane roundabout where appropriate
$$$$$$
4.1
Continue to install reduced left-turn conflict intersections such as RCUT, roundabouts, and diverging diamond
interchanges
$$$$$$
Vulnerable Road Users
16.2
Construct grade-separated crossings such as pedestrian overpasses or underpasses to eliminate conflicts with
vehicle traffic and ensure safe access across wide or high-speed corridors
$$$$$$
Post-Crash Care
31.3
Use TIM performance data to support continuous improvement and inform investment in incident detection and
response technologies
$$$$
Table 11: Long-Term Actions (5+ Years)
Long-Term Actions (5+ years)
Long-term actions are listed in Table 11.
$0-$100,000
$100,001-$250,000
$250,001-$500,000
$500,001-$750,000
$750,001-$1M
>$1M
$:
$$:
$$$:
$$$$:
$$$$$:
$$$$$$:
17.1
Continue to install dual lighting at each corner of wide intersections where appropriate
$$$
17.2
Continue to enhance visibility of signs, signals, and pavement markings at intersections
$$
17.3
Continue to install overhead lighting at midblock pedestrian and bicycle crossings
$$
17.4
Continue to provide leading pedestrian intervals in areas with heavy pedestrian activity
$
19.2
Use the Arizona School Siting Guidelines, City of Buckeye Engineering Design Standards, and school
development agreements to ensure new and existing schools are planned with sufficient on-site queuing and
multimodal access
$ to $$$$
19.4
Continue to participate in the regional SRTS program to implement infrastructure improvements such as
crosswalks, sidewalks and traffic calming near schools
$$ to $$$$
19.5
Continue to participate in the regional SRTS program to implement local solutions
$
SAFE USERS
23.2
Install physical deterrents to reduce unsafe speeds on shared-use paths
$
23.3
Pass a youth bike and e-bike helmet ordinance
$
SAFE SPEEDS
28.2
Reduce speed limits where test study indicates speed limits should be reduced
$$$$$
29.1
Pilot turning radii designs at intersections and right turn slip lane designs
$$$$ to $$$$$
Post-Crash Care
31.2
Define and track key traffic incident management (TIM) metrics, including time of incident notification, arrival of
first responder, roadway clearance time and incident clearance time
$$$$
Table 10 Continued: Mid-Term Actions (2-5 Years)
Page 52
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Implementation of Projects
While the previously mentioned strategies and actions apply generally or to specific roadway types, the
safety analysis also identified specific locations within the HRN where targeted improvement projects may be
considered.
The following potential safety improvements identified for each project are conceptual and intended to guide
future project development. Not all improvements will be applicable or implemented at every location. Final
project scopes will be determined through future planning, design, and coordination with the appropriate
agencies.
Some previously identified project locations have progressed through design or construction, or have
undergone significant changes such that identifying new safety improvements is no longer applicable. In
several cases, projects have been reconstructed to urban standards or otherwise improved in a way that is
expected to address many of the previously identified crash risk factors.
The following locations fall into this category:
•
McDowell Road, from 199th Avenue to Jackrabbit Trail
•
Watson Road and Broadway Road
•
Miller Road and Durango Street
•
I-10 Ramps at Jackrabbit Trail
•
Apache Road and Southern Avenue
The remaining projects have been organized into high, moderate, and low priority groups based on crash
history, risk characteristics, and project readiness, as summarized in Tables 12 through 14.
Appendix I provides additional detail beyond these summary tables, including crash trends and contributing
factors, proposed safety improvements, associated Crash Modification Factors (CMFs), and the corresponding
Strategy and Action IDs that link each project to the Transportation Safety Plan.
HIGH
Project design is starting soon or is already underway and has 2+ people who
were fatally or seriously injured in motor vehicle crashes (“KSI People”).
Ordered by number of KSI people. (Table 12)
MODERATE
Project design is likely a few years out or not yet programmed but could be
programmed soon and has 2+ KSI people. Ordered by number of KSI people.
LOW
Project design is programmed many years out or can be programmed later
because elevated risk characteristics exist but do not have history of KSI
People. Ordered by HRN score. (Table 14)
Page 53
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Project ID
Name
Ownership (2026)
Potential Safety Improvements
Opportunity to Implement Improvements
Status
H-1
SR 85 & Broadway Rd
ADOT/ Buckeye
- Install flashing beacons on the stop signs for the EB/WB directions at SR 85
- Implement other stop sign improvements such as duplicate signs, increased sign size, reflective paneling, pavement word markings,
etc
- Improve lighting at the intersections
High - programmed project for traffic signal begins
design in 2026; could be potential to include
interim improvements while design of traffic
signal is ongoing
2026
(Design)
H-2
SR 85 & Southern Ave
ADOT/ MCDOT/ Buckeye
- Install flashing beacons on the stop signs for the EB/WB directions at SR 85
- Implement other stop sign improvements such as duplicate signs, increased sign size, reflective paneling, pavement word markings,
etc
- Improve lighting at the intersections
High - programmed project for traffic signal begins
design in 2026; could be potential to include
interim improvements while design of traffic
signal is ongoing
2026
(Design)
H-3
SR 85 & Baseline Rd
ADOT/ MCDOT
- Install flashing beacons on the stop signs for the EB/WB directions at SR 85
- Implement other stop sign improvements such as duplicate signs, increased sign size, reflective paneling, pavement word markings,
etc
- Improve lighting at the intersections
High - programmed project for traffic signal begins
design in 2026; could be potential to include
interim improvements while design of traffic
signal is ongoing
2026
(Design)
H-4
Watson Rd, from Durango
St to Lower Buckeye Rd
Buckeye
- Evaluate speed limits and apply speed management strategies to reduce operating speeds on Watson
- Improve lighting along the corridor (currently only present on one side of the road)
- Reduce travel lane widths to less than 12 ft
- Install speed feedback signs
High - programmed project for half-street
improvements begins construction in 2026; could
be potential to refine design to include safety
improvements
2026
(Construction)
H-5
Miller Rd, from Maricopa
Rd to Southern Ave
Buckeye
- Evaluate speed limits and apply speed management strategies to reduce operating speeds on Miller
- Improve lighting along the corridor
- Install speed feedback signs
High - partially programmed project for widening
and signal improvements between Broadway
Road and Lower Buckeye Road begins design in
2026; could be potential to refine design to include
safety improvements and influence adjacent
development-led improvements
2026
(Design-Partial);
(None-
Remainder)
H-6
Indian School Rd and
Jackrabbit Trl
Buckeye
- Implement protected-only left-turn phasing for all approaches at Jackrabbit/Indian School
- If permissive left-turn operation is maintained, remove negative left-turn offsets for NB/SB approaches at Jackrabbit/Indian School
- Install a raised median on Indian School from Jackrabbit to 191st Ave
- Evaluate speed limits and apply speed management strategies to reduce operating speeds on Jackrabbit
High - programmed project for intersection
widening begins design in 2026; could be potential
to refine design to include safety improvements
2026
(Design)
H-7
Sundance Pkwy/Yuma Rd
& Rainbow Rd
Buckeye
- Install a traffic signal at Sundance/Rainbow
- Remove negative offset for NB/SB approaches at Sundance/Rainbow
High - programmed project for traffic signal begins
design in 2026; could be potential to refine design
to include safety improvements
2026
(Design)
Table 12: High Priority Projects
Page 54
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Project ID
Name
Ownership (2026)
Potential Safety Improvements
Opportunity to Implement Improvements
Status
M-1
Yuma Rd, from Rainbow Rd
to Apache Rd
Buckeye
- Implement protected-only left-turn phasing for all approaches at Yuma/Watson + Yuma/Sundance
- If permissive left-turn operation is maintained, remove negative left-turn offsets for EB/WB approaches at Yuma/Watson + Yuma/
Sundance
- Improve lighting along the corridor (present only on the median) and at unsignalized intersections
- Install restricted crossing U-turns (RCUTs)
- Evaluate speed limits and apply speed management strategies to reduce operating speeds on Yuma
Moderate - High KSI, yet no funding identified;
Project referenced in Buckeye Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan
None
M-2
MC 85, from Perryville Rd
to 203rd Ave (Currently
MCDOT)
MCDOT
- Enhance the visibility of signs and pavement markings at MC 85/Jackrabbit
- Install raised medians on MC 85 and Jackrabbit
- Improve lighting along the corridor and intersections
Moderate - High KSI, yet no funding identified
(project on Jackrabbit Trail at MC 85 is
programmed beyond 2046)
2046
(Plan)
M-3
Baseline Rd, from Turner
Rd to half-mile west if
Wilson Ave
MCDOT
- Install rumble strips
- Install left-turn lanes on the major road approaches at intersections
- Install paved shoulders
- Install a raised median on Baseline
Moderate - High KSI, yet no funding identified
None
M-4
SR 85 & Hazen Rd
(Currently MCDOT & ADOT)
ADOT/ MCDOT
- Install flashing beacons on the stop signs for the EB/WB directions at Hazen Rd/SR 85
- Implement other stop sign improvements such as duplicate signs, increased sign size, reflective paneling, pavement word markings,
etc
- Improve lighting at the intersections
Moderate - no programmed projects but inclusion
of Hazen Road/SR 85 intersection in MAG Corridor
Study could increase likelihood of obtaining
funding in the future
None
M-5
Monroe Ave/
MC 85, from Miller Rd to
Shepards Trl
Buckeye
- Evaluate speed limits and apply speed management strategies to reduce operating speeds on MC 85
- Manage the spacing of accesses and intersections along MC 85 from Miller Rd to 9th St
- Improve lighting along the corridor
Moderate - High KSI, yet no funding identified;
Project referenced in Buckeye Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan
None
M-6
MC 85, from Rooks Rd to
SR 85 (Currently MCDOT)
MCDOT
- Evaluate speed limits and apply speed management strategies to reduce operating speeds on MC 85
- Install flashing warning beacons on the Traffic Signal Ahead warning signs for the NB/SB directions at MC 85/SR 85
- Install retroreflective backplates on the existing traffic signal heads
- Improve lighting at the intersections
- Install near-side traffic signal heads and/or additional traffic signal heads on the existing traffic signal mast arms and poles
Moderate - no programmed projects but inclusion
of MC 85/SR 85 intersection in MAG Corridor Study
could increase likelihood of obtaining funding in
the future
None
M-7
Miller Rd, from Beloat Rd/
Irwin Ave/ Lower River Rd
to Maricopa Rd
Buckeye
- Evaluate speed limits and apply speed management strategies to reduce operating speeds on Miller
- Improve lighting along the corridor
- Provide guide lines for left-turn movements through the intersection of Baseline/Miller
- Install a traffic signal at Baseline/Miller
- Implement protected-only left-turn phasing at Monroe/Miller
Moderate - High KSI, yet no funding identified
None
M-8
Tuthill Rd/Jackrabbit Trl
& Beloat Rd (Currently
MCDOT)
MCDOT
- Enhance visibility of signs and pavement markings at Beloat/Jackrabbit
- Install intersection and curve warning signs/chevrons for vehicles approaching the intersection
- Install flashing beacons on the stop sign for the EB approach at the intersection
- Widen shoulders and install rumble strips on the roadways
Moderate - High KSI, yet no funding identified
(project on Jackrabbit Trail at Tuthill Road is
programmed beyond 2046)
2046
(Plan)
M-9
Apache Rd and Yuma Rd
Buckeye
- Evaluate speed limits and apply speed management strategies to reduce operating speeds on Apache and Yuma
- Install a raised median on Apache
- Install sidewalks on both sides of Apache and Yuma
- Improve lighting at Yuma/Apache; install dual lighting on corners, especially southeast corner
- Enhance visibility of signs and pavement markings at Yuma/Apache
Moderate - programmed project for traffic signal
begins design in 2029; could be potential to
include safety improvements in design
2029
(Design)
M-10
Yuma Rd, from Verrado
Way to Tuthill Rd
Buckeye
- Evaluate speed limits and apply speed management strategies to reduce operating speeds on Yuma
- Install speed feedback signs
- Enhance visibility of signs and pavement markings at Yuma/Dean
Moderate - programmed project for widening
between Verrado Way and Tuthill Road begins
design in 2029; could be potential to include safety
improvements in design
2029
(Design)
Table 13: Moderate Priority Projects
Page 55
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Project ID
Name
Ownership (2026)
Potential Safety Improvements
Opportunity to Implement Improvements
Status
L-1
4th St, from Baseline Rd to
Monroe Ave
Buckeye
- Evaluate speed limits and apply speed management strategies to reduce operating speeds on 4th St
- Install a raised median on 4th St
- Manage the spacing of accesses and intersections along 4th St from Baseline Rd to Monroe Ave
- Improve lighting along the corridor
Low - no programmed projects; Project referenced
in Buckeye Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
None
L-2
MC 85, from Miller Rd
to 255th Ave (Currently
MCDOT)
MCDOT
- Evaluate speed limits and apply speed management strategies to reduce operating speeds on MC 85
- Install a raised median on MC 85
Low - no programmed projects
None
L-3
Alarcon Blvd, from Miller
Rd to 1st Ave
Buckeye
- Provide sidewalks on both sides of Alarcon, if feasible in the future due to presence of open irrigation ditch
- Install a raised median on Alarcon
Low - no programmed projects
None
L-4
Baseline Rd, from Miller
Rd to Apache Rd (Partially
MCDOT)
Buckeye/ MCDOT
- Enhance visibility of signs and pavement markings at Apache/Baseline
- Install lighting along Baseline from Miller to Apache
- Remove sight obstructions for SB turning vehicles at Apache/Baseline
Low - no programmed projects
None
L-5
McDowell Rd, from Verrado
Way to 211th Ave
Buckeye
- Evaluate speed limits and apply speed management strategies to reduce operating speeds
- Install intersection and curve warning signs/chevrons on McDowell for vehicles approaching the intersection
- Implement protected-only left-turn phasing at McDowell/Verrado
Low - no programmed projects
None
L-6
Beloat Rd, from Dean Rd to
CEMEX driveway
MCDOT
- Evaluate speed limits and apply speed management strategies to reduce operating speeds on Beloat
- Install a raised median along the corridor
Low - no programmed projects
None
L-7
Rainbow Rd, from MC 85 to
Mountain Ave/ Monroe Ave
MCDOT
- Enhance visibility of signs and pavement markings at MC 85/Rainbow
- Improve lighting at the intersection
Low - no programmed projects
None
L-8
Sundance Ave
Intersections, by Watson
Rd
Buckeye
- Implement protected-only left-turn phasing for all approaches at Watson/Sundance
- Remove negative left-turn offsets for all approaches at Watson/Sundance, especially E-W
Low - no programmed projects
None
L-9
McDowell Rd, from
Jackrabbit Trail to 191st
Ave
MCDOT
- Install sidewalks along the corridor
- Improve lighting along the corridor
Low - no programmed projects between
Jackrabbit Trail and 191st Avenue
None
L-10
Watson Rd Intersections at
Southern Ave; Roeser Rd;
Broadway Rd
Buckeye
- Enhance visibility of signs and pavement markings at each intersection
- Improve lighting at each of the intersections
- Install a traffic signal at Broadway/Watson
- Implement protected-only left-turn phasing at all approaches of Watson/Southern
- Install retroreflective tape on the back plates
Low - no programmed projects for intersection
improvements at Southern Avenue and at Roeser
Road
None
L-11
Miller Rd, from Maricopa
Rd to Southern Ave
Buckeye
- Evaluate speed limits and apply speed management strategies to reduce operating speeds on Miller
- Improve lighting along the corridor
- Install speed feedback signs
Low - no programmed projects between Southern
Avenue and Alarcon Blvd/Maricopa Road
None
L-12
Yuma Rd, from Dean Rd to
Verrado Way
Buckeye
- Evaluate speed limits and apply speed management strategies to reduce operating speeds on Yuma
- Install speed feedback signs
- Enhance visibility of signs and pavement markers at Yuma/Dean
Low - no programmed projects between Dean
Road and Verrado Way; Project referenced in
Buckeye Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
None
Table 14: Low Priority Projects
Page 56
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
S
|
I
M
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
S
C
H
E
D
U
L
E
|
P
E
R
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
M
E
T
R
I
C
S
|
M
O
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
P
R
O
G
R
E
S
S
&
E
V
A
L
U
A
T
I
O
N
|
Buckeye’s Safety Task Force
At the onset of this planning effort, City of Buckeye staff from
public works, transportation, communication, finance, and
police department came together every month to provide
direction, input, and feedback on the TSP planning process.
Additionally, there were three touchpoints with MCDOT and
ADOT staff as related to crash analysis outcomes and strategy
development.
After the TSP is adopted, this Safety Task Force will continue
as an implementation team, with the current members. It will
meet quarterly, and every other meeting, MCDOT and ADOT
staff will be invited to participate as members of the Task Force.
The main purpose of this group will be to implement the TSP strategies and actions, coordinate collaborative
safety projects and improvements, monitor and track progress of implementation, and review crash data
trends to measure performance of goals. Additionally, they will work together on inter-agency policy and
design procedures, review project designs and scopes that are occurring in Buckeye to ensure the safest design
elements are considered, and protocols and data-sharing agreements are in place to support sustained, multi-
jurisdictional efforts.
As part of this SS4A compliant safety action plan, this group will support the development of the annual report
of Buckeye’s TSP.
TSP Performance Program: Monitoring Progress
GOAL
5% Reduction in
Fatalities and
Serious Injuries
by 2036
A milestone target of 5% reduction in
fatalities
and
serious
injuries
by
2036 requires consistent monitoring and
thoughtful evaluation of key performance
metrics. The TSP Performance Program sets
the framework and schedule to implement
different elements and analyze performance
metrics over the next 10 years.
Monitoring
progress
and
evaluating
improvements in Buckeye’s transportation
safety will be conducted through five
interrelated components that make up the
TSP Performance Program: Goal Horizon and
Target Selection, Elements, Implementation
Schedule,
Performance
Metrics,
and
Monitoring
Progress
and
Evaluating
Outcomes.
Page 57
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Goal Horizon and Target Selection
The City of Buckeye is experiencing rapid growth. The 2020 Census (City proper) reported approximately 92,000
residents, while the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) estimates an MPA population of 150,000
in 2025 and more than 415,000 by 2050. As population increases, the transportation system also expands
through new roads, wider corridors, additional intersections, and more traffic signals. The City of Buckeye
currently has 40 signalized intersections, and that number continues to grow each year.
Motor vehicle crash frequency increases as exposure increases. More residents lead to more trips, higher
traffic volumes, and greater chances to encounter potential crash events. Without focused safety action, the
total number of crashes and serious injuries in Buckeye would be expected to rise due to population growth
alone. The Transportation Safety Plan seeks to reduce fatal and serious injury outcomes despite this upward
pressure from growth, which presents a significant challenge.
While continued growth in Buckeye is unquestionable, the pace and timing of development remain uncertain.
Long-range population and traffic projections carry increasing uncertainty over time, particularly for derived
measures such as vehicle miles traveled, which depend on assumptions about roadway extent and future
traffic volumes. As these uncertainties grow with longer time horizons, the City will use 2036 as a 10-year
milestone that can be revisited and adjusted as real-world conditions evolve. Using linear interpolation, the
population of Buckeye’s MPA in 2036 is anticipated to be approximately 267,000.
Although the percentage reduction of 5% appears small, it reflects the reality that Buckeye’s population is
growing quickly. As more people live and travel in the city, the small percent reduction in fatalities and serious
injuries results in a significant improvement in safety for each resident—estimated to be close to a 50 percent
reduction when adjusted for population growth.
Page 58
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Elements
There are six main elements that form the TSP Performance Program. They include:
•
Strategies and Actions: The TSP includes 31 strategies with 54 associated actions, each with specific
implementation tasks and timeframes. Additionally, most actions have measurable impacts to reduce
roadway fatalities and serious injuries.
•
Crash Dashboard: Buckeye’s crash dashboard was developed to analyze complex crash data in a
consistent manner, while presenting the information in a clear, accessible way to support the reduction
of fatal and serious injury crashes.
•
Annual Report: The first annual report of the TSP will include the remainder of 2026 and calendar
year 2027, and will continue on an annual basis to report on the previous year as time progresses. This
annual report provides accountability and transparency on progress to reduce fatalities and serious
injuries.
•
HRN + Fatal Crash Locations: Buckeye’s high-risk network and fatal crash locations were identified
through a geospatial analysis that combined crash, roadway, and other data sources. As this analysis is
based on data, it is important to update this analysis and analyze results as time passes.
•
KSI Crash and KSI People Performance Metrics: Performance measures are indicators that enable
staff, decision-makers, stakeholders, and the community to monitor changes related to transportation
safety and performance against established visions, and objectives (USDOT and State Safety
Performance Targets). To understand if progress is being made to achieve the safety goal, a set of
performance metrics are identified to track progress.
•
% KSI People Reduction: The overall vision of Buckeye’s TSP is to eliminate fatalities and serious injury
crashes on their transportation network. Tracking the % reduction of KSI People (fatalities and serious
injuries), directly quantifies the effectiveness of implementing the strategies and actions in this plan.
Implementation Schedule
To ensure a coherent performance program, an overall monitoring schedule will be established to align tasks,
resources, and deadlines, support accountability, and track progress toward reducing fatalities and serious
injuries. For this program, annual intervals will serve as the primary milestones for tracking implementation
and evaluating change.
Page 59
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Performance Metrics
The proposed performance metrics for the TSP Performance Program include:
•
Fatal Crashes (K on the KABCO scale)
•
Fatalities (Persons Killed in Fatal Crashes)
•
Population
•
Fatality Rate = (Total # of Fatalities in a 5-year period / 5 / Jurisdiction Population) X 100,000
•
Serious Injury Crashes (A on the KABCO scale)
•
Serious Injuries (Persons seriously injured in Fatal and Serious Injury crashes)
•
Fatal & Serious Injury Crashes (KSI Crashes)
•
Overall Crashes
•
High Injury Locations
•
Overall Fatal & Serious Injury (KSI) Crash Trends
•
High Risk Network
Monitoring Progress & Evaluating Outcomes
Monitoring implementation of the TSP will begin right away and continue at specific increments, and assess if
strategies and actions are being implemented, and of how well the TSP is performing. Additionally, this phase
will also determine needed adjustments or modifications to strategies, actions, and project implementation. A
significant portion of the first five years of this program will be execution of current work efforts, implementation
of the new work efforts and assessing outcomes to understand what is making an impact or not related to
reducing KSI crashes in Buckeye.
A Cohesive Performance Program
Aligning the multiple elements into a program can provide transparency, improve decision making, and support
management of interdependent work efforts, and will benefit Buckeye staff, the community, and leaders.
Table 15 organizes the pieces of the TSP Performance Program into an understandable integrated framework.
The framework provides the structure to evaluate outcomes and determine the continued implementation
and/or adjustments that are needed to meet the vision of eliminating deaths or serious injuries on Buckeye’s
transportation network.
Page 60
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Element
Schedule
Monitor
Evaluate
Connected Performance
Metrics
Strategies &
Actions
6 months post
adoption of
TSP
Set up tracking system
and confirm lead for
implementation.
Evaluate if progress is being made,
and/or if adjustments or modifications
to implementation schedule,
strategies and/or actions are needed.
N/A
Annually
Track implementation of
strategies and actions.
Crash
Dashboard
Annually
Update crash dashboard with
new data.
Increase or decrease of crash
information: serious injuries, fatalities,
vulnerable road users, crash locations
of KSIs, and shifts in KSI crash factors,
driver behavior, or demographics.
Serious injuries, fatalities,
vulnerable road users, crash
locations of KSIs, and shifts
in KSI crash factors, driver
behavior, or demographics.
Annual
Report
Annually
Develop annual report related
to new information from
the crash dashboard, and
progress of TSP elements:
Strategies and Actions, Project
Implementation, Funding,
Successes
Evaluate if progress is being made on
strategies, actions and projects; and/
or if adjustments or modifications to
implementation schedule, strategies
and/or actions are needed.
Document changes in KSI People.
Implementation of strategies,
actions and projects.
Crash information: Serious
injuries, fatalities, vulnerable
road users, crash locations of
KSIs, and KSI crash factors, driver
behavior, and demographics.
Enforcement Information
Education Information
KSI Crashes
and KSI
People
Annually
Ensure previous elements
are complete: tracking of
implementation of strategies
and actions, update of crash
dashboard, annual reports,
update of High Injury Crash
Locations.
Evaluate changes in performance
metrics.
Crash information: Serious
injuries, fatalities, vulnerable
road users, crash locations of
KSIs, and KSI crash factors, driver
behavior, and demographics.
HRN
5 Years
Update the HRN and identify
fatal crash locations based on
the previous five years of crash
data every 5 years.
Use five years of new data to refresh
HRN and High Injury Locations, and
identify roadways and intersections
that continue to be on the HRN or
have changed.
Crash history, downtown
context, driver behavior metrics,
roadway geometry, vulnerable
road user factors, and MAG
predictive safety tool(s) – if
available. All metrics are
identified in the HRN technical
memorandum.
% KSI People
Reduction
5 Years
Review up-to-date crash
dashboard
Evaluate performance metrics for %
KSI reduction.
Population
Crash information: Serious
injuries, fatalities, vulnerable
road users, crash locations of
KSIs, and KSI crash factors, driver
behavior, and demographics.
10 Years
Evaluate performance metrics for %
KSI reduction.
Table 15: TSP Performance Program
Page 61
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
Working Together for a Safer Buckeye
Creating a safer transportation network in Buckeye will
take a collective effort by committing to a future that is
free from people getting killed and seriously injured on our
roadways. Implementing the 31 strategies across different
city departments, MCDOT, ADOT, and partner agencies
will get us very far in reaching our goals through proven
engineering, enforcement, education, and post-crash care
actions. While these actions outline strategic work efforts,
the other area that we as a community need is a pledge from
residents and visitors to recognize that Buckeye’s roadways
are shared spaces for all users, and rules of the road are to be
understood and observed.
City Council Approval
The Buckeye Transportation Safety Plan was formally adopted by the Buckeye City Council on May 5, 2026,
marking a significant milestone in the City’s ongoing commitment to improving roadway safety. The adoption
followed a comprehensive planning process that included data analysis, stakeholder engagement, and
public input to ensure the plan reflects community priorities and best practices in transportation safety. City
Council’s approval demonstrates strong leadership and a shared vision for reducing traffic-related fatalities
and serious injuries while promoting safer, more accessible streets. This action aligns Buckeye with national
best practices, including FHWA’s Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program and its eventual goal of zero
fatalities and serious injuries. This action establishes the plan as an official guiding document for future
investments, policies, and programs to enhance transportation safety throughout Buckeye.
Stay Involved
As noted in the previous section, there are many work efforts and projects identified to move forward. City
staff will move forward to integrate engineering treatments into projects and programs, search for funding
and partners to expand efforts, and ask you to get involved and help share the message that every life counts
on our roadways. Please stay involved and sign up for updates at https://www.buckeyeaz.gov/business-
development/program-management-office/transportation-master-plan-copy/transportation-safety-plan
Page 40
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX A:
EXISTING PLAN REVIEW
kimley-horn.com
1001 W. Southern Avenue, Suite 131 | Mesa, AZ 85210
480.207.2666
MEMORANDUM
To:
Jeremy Labenski, Project Manager – Y2K Engineering
From:
Michael Grandy, PE, RSP1 – Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Date:
April 3, 2025
Subject:
City of Buckeye Existing Plan Review
An in-depth assessment of the City of Buckeye’s existing transportation plans and policies was
performed to understand the current state of transportation safety. The review focused on existing
planning documents, policy documents, and engineering design standards. The sections below detail
the goals and policies contained in the plans. Recommendations from the review of the policy
documents and engineering design standards will be provided in the gap assessment documentation.
The plans reviewed are included in Table 1. The existing policies or goals identified in the documents
below were placed into the five Safe System elements as defined by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA).
Table 1 – City of Buckeye Existing Documents
Plan Name
Date
Buckeye Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
2019
Buckeye General Plan 2040
2018 Original, Amended in 2019 and 2022
Buckeye in Motion Transportation Master Plan
2019
Buckeye ITS Strategic Plan
2018
Buckeye Parks and Recreation Master Plan
2016
Buckeye Transit Study
Draft 2024
Downtown Buckeye Specific Area Plan
2023 Original, Amended in 2024
El Rio Design Guidelines and Planning Standards
2015
El Rio District Area Plan
Unknown
Speed Cushion Policy and Procedures
2022
Safe System Approach
FHWA endorses the Safe System approach, which they define as a “human-centered approach to road
safety that recognizes human vulnerability and the inevitability of mistakes, aiming to eliminate fatalities
and serious injuries by focusing on safe speeds, roads, vehicles, users, and post-crash care” (Zero
Deaths and Safe System 2024). The Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program aids the U.S.
Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) National Roadway Safety Strategy and aims to achieve zero
roadway fatalities through the Safe System approach. Therefore, this approach was used as the lens
to review the existing plans and documents to identify gaps in the existing documentation.
A-1
Page 2
kimley-horn.com
1001 W. Southern Avenue, Suite 131 | Mesa, AZ 85210
480.207.2666
Achieving zero fatalities can be achieved by adopting a Safe System approach, which is based on the
understanding that humans are prone to mistakes and that human bodies have limited capacity to
withstand crash impacts. Within a Safe System, these errors should never be fatal. This approach
involves anticipating human errors by designing and managing road infrastructure to minimize the risk
of mistakes, and ensuring that when mistakes do lead to crashes, the impact is not fatal or a severe
injury. Road design and management should promote safe speeds and adjust crash angles to reduce
injury severity. The Safe System approach is founded on six key principles: deaths and serious injuries
are unacceptable, humans make mistakes, humans are vulnerable, responsibility is shared, safety is
proactive, and redundancy is essential.
Figure 1: Safe System Elements
The Safe System approach is made up of five Safe System elements: Safe Road Users, Safe Speeds,
Safe Roads, Post-Crash Care, and Safe Vehicles. As the planning documents were reviewed, they
were categorized into each of these elements.
A-2
Page 3
kimley-horn.com
1001 W. Southern Avenue, Suite 131 | Mesa, AZ 85210
480.207.2666
Plan Review
Safe Road Users
The Safe System element, Safe Road Users, focuses on creating conditions that prioritize road users
by encouraging safe and responsible driving and behaviors so all travelers can reach their destinations
unharmed. When reviewing the existing published documents through the lens of ‘Safe Road Users’,
guidance around educating and encouraging safer travel for the community was captured. A summary
of the policies and goals related to Safe Road Users is provided in Table 2. A detailed table that
summarizes all the policies and goals reviewed is provided as an attachment.
Table 2 - Safe Road Users Summary
Guidance Themes
Document(s)
Conduct safety programs throughout the community.
•
Buckeye General Plan 2040
Be proactive with safety enforcing codes and ordinances.
•
Buckeye General Plan 2040
Implement a Safe Routes to School Program.
•
Buckeye General Plan 2040
Encourage mode shifts and promote community-wide transit
ridership.
•
Buckeye in Motion
Transportation Master Plan
Consider all residents’ needs for transportation and continue
to provide options to underserved and disadvantaged
communities.
•
Buckeye in Motion
Transportation Master Plan
Safe Speeds
The Safe System element, Safe Speeds, focuses on encouraging safe speeds through roadway
design, speed limit setting, education, and enforcement. Discussion within the existing policies related
to speed mitigation implementations or strategies was captured in addition to roadway design
guidance with the intention of reducing speeds or protecting vulnerable road users (VRU). Table 3
summarizes the policies and goals related to Safe Speeds published in Buckeye’s existing
documents. A detailed table that summarizes all the policies and goals reviewed is provided as an
attachment.
Table 3 - Safe Speeds Summary
Guidance Themes
Document(s)
Minimize speeds at interior parks by using strategic roadway
geometry and consider installing traffic calming strategies
like speed humps or cushions.
•
Buckeye Parks and Recreation
Master Plan
Minimize vehicular travel speeds in residential areas with
speed cushions if they are warranted.
•
Speed Cushion Policy and
Procedures
A-3
Page 4
kimley-horn.com
1001 W. Southern Avenue, Suite 131 | Mesa, AZ 85210
480.207.2666
Safe Roads
The Safe System element, Safe Roads, focuses on the design elements of a roadway and encourages
the reduction of human errors and understanding the limits humans can withstand without sustaining
serious injuries. FHWA also includes encouraging safer behaviors and facilitating safer travel for the
most vulnerable users as part of the definition for safer roads. Safe Roads is the most common Safe
System approach element found within Buckeye’s policy documents. The policies and goals related to
Safe Roads are summarized in Table 4. A detailed table that summarizes all the policies and goals
reviewed is provided as an attachment.
Table 4 - Safe Roads Summary
Guidance Themes
Document(s)
Provide safe, accessible, and connected travel networks
and promote all forms of transportation.
•
Buckeye General Plan 2040
•
Buckeye in Motion
Transportation Master Plan
•
Buckeye Parks and
Recreation Master Plan
•
Downtown Buckeye Specific
Area Plan
The City should work with schools to develop and implement
a Safe Routes to School Program and schools should be
designed to enhance safety and accessibility.
•
Buckeye General Plan 2040
For new developments, require on-site infrastructure for
VRU and connectivity to the existing system.
•
Buckeye General Plan 2040
•
Buckeye in Motion
Transportation Master Plan
•
El Rio Design Guidelines and
Planning Standards
Collaborate through partnerships and agreements for
maintaining and connecting maintenance roads for VRU.
•
Buckeye in Motion
Transportation Master Plan
Design roadways with physical separation of VRU to
improve safety and establish guidelines for crossings with
motor vehicles.
•
2040 General Plan
•
Buckeye in Motion
Transportation Master Plan
•
Buckeye Parks and
Recreation Master Plan
•
Downtown Buckeye Specific
Area Plan
•
El Rio Design Guidelines and
Planning Standards
The City should evaluate improving traffic flow by
addressing missing links in the arterial network.
•
Buckeye in Motion
Transportation Master Plan
Develop a traffic management center (TMC) and implement
strategic infrastructure to relay traveler information and
improve traffic operations.
•
ITS Strategic Plan Buckeye
A-4
Page 5
kimley-horn.com
1001 W. Southern Avenue, Suite 131 | Mesa, AZ 85210
480.207.2666
Post-Crash Care
The Safe System element, Post-Crash Care, focuses on enhancing crash survivability by ensuring
quick access to emergency medical care, creating a safe working environment for first responders, and
preventing secondary crashes through effective traffic incident management practices. FHWA
emphasizes the importance of rapid medical response and coordination among emergency services to
minimize the severity of injuries. Effective incident management is crucial for maintaining safety on
roadways and minimizing disruptions. The policies and goals related to post-crash care are
summarized in Table 5. A detailed table that summarizes all the policies and goals reviewed is provided
as an attachment.
Table 5 – Post-Crash Care Summary
Guidance Themes
Document(s)
Establish and monitor incident response times and
standards.
•
Buckeye General Plan 2040
Update Emergency Operations Plan regularly to ensure
effective response.
•
Buckeye General Plan 2040
Develop a traffic management center (TMC) and implement
strategic infrastructure to improve emergency response
operations.
•
Buckeye ITS Strategic Plan
Safe Vehicles
The Safe System element, Safe Vehicles, focuses on vehicle safety systems and features that help
prevent crashes and minimize the severity of injuries and collision impacts. This is a critical element of
the Safe System approach as it reinforces that humans are vulnerable and redundancy within a system
is needed so that if one system component fails, people are still protected. Due to the nature of this
element, no policies were captured as this element is primarily the purview of the vehicle engineers
and manufacturers. An example of a Safe Vehicles solution would be creating safer seat belts; however,
promoting and educating the importance of wearing seat belts would be captured under Safe Road
Users.
SOURCES
1.
What Is a Safe System Approach, U.S. Department of Transportation, January 2025,
https://www.transportation.gov/safe-system-approach
2.
Zero Deaths and Safe System, FHWA, August 2024, https://highways.dot.gov/safety/zero-
deaths#:~:text=Applying%20the%20Safe%20System%20approach,a%20fatality%20or%20se
rious%20injury.
A-5
Plan Name
Year
Jurisdiction
Link
Vision / Goals / Objectives
Relevant Recommendations
Relevant Section/Pages
Notes
El Rio Design Guidelines
and Planning Standards
2015
Local
https://www.buc
keyeaz.gov/hom
e/showpublishe
ddocument/118
99/6379676322
68270000
"The trails and shared use pathways would connect communities to the river, and provide unique
opportunities to showcase the corridor’s cultural history
and diversity of habitats.
Exhibit 4-1 Identifies planned municipal trails or paths
Chapter 4; Chapter 5
The El Rio Design Guidelines and Planning Standards
provide the county, the communities, and all interested
parties, with guidelines to supplement the current
development
regulations. These guidelines help to create and maintain
a focus on techniques that can increase awareness and
appreciation of, as well as access to, the Gila River.
Buckeye Parks and
Recreation Master Plan
2016
Local
https://www.buc
keyeaz.gov/hom
e/showpublishe
ddocument/662
/636437642600
200000
GOAL 3.1 PATH & TRAIL PLANNING AND CONNECTIONS : Plan a regionally connected and locally
integrated trail system that links parks and recreation facilities to neighborhoods and
activity centers.
GOAL 3.2 PATH & TRAIL DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION
Design and construct a functional path and trail system
tailored to the needs of those using them.
GOAL 3.3 PATH & TRAIL MAINTENANCE
Provide sufficient resources to maintain new trails
PATHWAYS, TRAILS
1. Pathways and trails should be lighted with landscaping provided.
2. Trash cans with pet waste stations shall be provided intermittently along pathways.
3. Parks, open space and green belts should be linked through a system of pathways within the community with
connections to adjacent communities, pathways and sidewalks located along streets, canals, powerline corridors, washes, etc.
4. Provide access nodes every quarter mile and at a minimum every half mile along boundaries of paths and
trails; however 500’ distance between access nodes is recommended to maximize the functionality of the system.
5. Resting stations with seating nodes should be advantageously located along pathways.
6. Paths and landscaping located between lots must be a minimum of 30 feet wide to avoid narrow passageways through a development.
7. Pedestrian paths that cross a street should be done at intersections and not at mid-block. Bollards should be used at such crossings to prevent motorized vehicles from accessing the path.
8. Provide adequate access for the maintenance of pathways and trails.
Strategies per goal listed in chapter 3
Guidelines for pathways and trails page 80
Chapter 3
Established a framework for parks, paths, trails, and open
spaces in Buckeye. The plan established a robust network
of planned trail and path facilities along washes, rivers,
canals, utility corridors, and open space areas.
Buckeye ITS Strategic Plan
2018
Local
https://azmag.g
ov/Portals/0/Do
cuments/MagCo
ntent/2018_ITS_
Strategic-Plan-
Buckeye.pdf?ver
=XJEXsHgy06_AS
6rtgIIg4w%3d%3
d
Vision:
To optimize the capacity of the transportation system, improve safety, and reduce peak hour
demand on gateway arterials by facilitating real-time operation and management of the
transportation network from the City’s operational center and coordinating with
neighboring agencies for cross-jurisdictional operations
Goal:
Provide the City with guidance for assembling a complete and robust ITS
network so that Buckeye can actively coordinate, operate, and manage their transportation
network
Presents phased recommendations along 4 tracks: Infrastructure, Systems, Staffing, Partnering.
Pg 12
Identify strategies and tools to enable the City to manage
its transportation network more efficiently
Identifies Priority Transportation Facilties in Buckeye
Buckeye in Motion
Transportation Master Plan
2019
Local
https://www.buc
keyeaz.gov/hom
e/showpublishe
ddocument/788
2/63708735558
0900000
Same as General Plan
Future Street Network Designations Page 2-66
Future LOS Page 2-67
Documents existing services and facilties for each mode type (Streets, Transit, Active, Aviation, Rail, Freight, and ITS) relevant plans, demand, comprehensive short, medium, and long range
recommendations alongside implementation and funding sources.
Within each mode, there is a section outlining how each mode interacts with each other.
Chapter 9 contains an implementation matrix and timeframe
Entire Document
Extension and focus of the General Plan - The TMP
provides recommended multimodal transportation
improvements to accommodate growth within Buckeye’s
Municipal Planning Area (MPA). Based on the existing and
forecasted conditions for
Buckeye, the TMP establishes a strategy for the
development of a comprehensive transportation network
that efficiently serves multiple modes of transportation
including the street network, transit services, active
transportation facilities, aviation, rail, and freight
Buckeye Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan
2019
Local
https://www.buc
keyeaz.gov/hom
e/showpublishe
ddocument/788
4/63708735898
2070000
Vision:
“The City of Buckeye is a community where walking or riding a bike is a comfortable and
convenient transportation choice for residents and visitors of all ages and abilities”
Goals:
Goal 1 Improve Safety of bicyclists and pedestrians through infrastructure improvements and
safety programs.
Goal 2 Improve Connectivity within the community by linking residents and visitors with activity
centers, employment areas, recreational facilities, corridors and opportunities for transit.
Goal 3 Improve Convenience of the bicycle and pedestrian network to connect people with transit
corridor hubs and stops.
Goal 4 Improve Awareness and Use of the bicycle and pedestrian network through awareness
programs, events and other public engagement activities.
Goal 5 Improve Maintenance to enhance use of the network through the use of low maintenance
materials and design considerations with the objective of reducing overall maintenance costs.
Chapter 4 functions as a toolbox of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements that can be implemented throughout the city in the future alongside other features such as natural shade
and wayfinding
Chapter 4; Chapter 5
Outlines benefits associated with bicycling, establishes
on-off street bicycle and pedestrian networks,
descriptions and cross sections of facility types on
various classifications of roadways.
Presents short, medium and long term improvement
projects
Buckeye Speed Cushion
Policy
2022
Local
https://www.buc
keyeaz.gov/hom
e/showpublishe
ddocument/120
28/6379936050
63200000
Reduce speeds on local or major local streets using Speed cushions
Policy and Procedures for installation of speed cushions
Entire Document
Buckeye Transit Study
2024
Local
https://www.buc
keyeaz.gov/hom
e/showpublishe
ddocument/133
63/6387547593
31530000
NA
Market study for transit in Buckeye - goes over existing travel patterns and demand
Entire Document
Presents projects population growth in 2040, future
development and travel patterns + demand. Presents
high level opportunities for connections between
communities and transportation hubs
Existing Plan Review Table (With Links, Objectives, Recommendations, and Notes)
A-6
Plan Name
Year
Jurisdiction
Link
Vision / Goals / Objectives
Relevant Recommendations
Relevant Section/Pages
Notes
Engineering Design
Standards Chapter 6:
Transportation
2012 original,
Amended 2017 -
2024
Local
https://www.buc
keyeaz.gov/busi
ness/engineerin
g/design-
standards-and-
details
Provides comprehensive guidelines for street planning and design standards, sidewalks,
roundabouts, intersections, plan requirements, traffic signals, signs and marking, as well as
asphalt mix designs
NA
Buckeye General Plan 2040
2018 - amended
in 2019 and
2022
Local
https://www.buc
keyeaz.gov/hom
e/showpublishe
ddocument/630
0/63792809631
1900000
Vision:
Buckeye in 2040 is an innovative, healthy, resilient, and forward‐thinking community that is safe
and secure with diverse employment, housing, education and business opportunities.
Buckeye offers rural to urban lifestyles with a genuine sense of heritage while being good
stewards of our natural resources, open spaces, and overall quality of life.
Goals:
GOAL 1: Fiscal Wellness and Financial Flexibility and Accountability
GOAL 2: Enhanced Economic Well‐Being and Vitality
GOAL 3: A Well‐Planned Urban Community
GOAL 4: Adequate, Well‐Maintained and Well‐Planned Public Infrastructure
GOAL 5: Responsive and Accountable Government and Effective Public Services
Intended Outcomes:
1. A Safe and Healthy Community: Residents and visitors are safe and healthy, feel safe and
secure, and share
responsibility for maintaining the safety and promoting the welfare of the community.
2. A Flourishing Cultural, Social, and Civic Life: Residents are fully and effectively engaged in
the life of the
community to promote a sense of place and to enhance our community pride, our shared
values, and our
common resources. All people have the opportunity to participate in the life of the
community and local
economy
Policy G-19.2: The City of Buckeye should promote the development of active communities that are designed to promote pedestrian and bike usage
and provide equitable and convenient access to parks, schools, recreation facilities, other public facilities, and shopping areas that are interconnected by trails.
Policy S-1.1: The City of Buckeye should prioritize public facility infrastructure improvement and investment projects in areas where there is existing development and funding for operations and
maintenance.
Policy S‐1.3 : The City of Buckeye should prepare a targeted infrastructure expansion and modernization plan for Generalized Areas for Growth and Activity Centers
Policy S‐1.4: All planning for new services and facilities will include provisions for the operations and maintenance of the planned projects.
Policy S‐3.5 : The City of Buckeye will conduct safety education programs throughout the community.
Policy S-4.2: The Buckeye Fire Medical Rescue Department should strive to meet a response time of four minutes for fire and emergency response within existing and new developments
Goal S‐9: Buckeye is a connected community with an efficient multimodal transportation network. (pg86)
Policy S‐9.2: New development should provide active transportation facilities, such as pedestrian paths, bike paths, and trails that enhance connectivity between community green spaces and to
regional parks and the Maricopa County trail system.
Policy S‐9.3 : The City of Buckeye should ensure that the transportation network is managed, operated, and maintained efficiently.
Policy S‐9.4: The City of Buckeye should design roads for multimodal accessibility.
Policy S‐9.7: The City of Buckeye will support expanding capacity on the existing I‐10 and SR85.
Policy S‐9.8: The City of Buckeye will actively promote and lobby for the expansion and development of new key transportation facilities, including commuter rail and other regional transportation
opportunities
Goal S‐10: Buckeye has a regional approach to transportation planning
Policy S‐10.1 The City of Buckeye will continue to use the adopted I‐10/Hassayampa Valley Roadway Framework Study as the base for its future roadway network.
Policy S‐10.2 The City of Buckeye will work to expand partnerships with ADOT, MCDOT, MAG, and adjacent municipalities when planning and funding transportation infrastructure.
Policy S‐10.3 The City of Buckeye should regularly update transportation plans consistent with regional objectives.
Policy S‐10.4 The City of Buckeye should work with MCDOT to assess the future viability of attached or detached bicycle and pedestrian paths on Sun Valley Parkway.
Policy S‐10.5 The City of Buckeye should seek intergovernmental agreements with canal districts, utility providers, and the flood control district for shared use of maintenance roads for
pedestrians and bicyclists.
Policies Pages 53-93 (pdf)
Used by the City to guide Buckeye’s future relative to land
use, public services, infrastructure, and resource
management. Recommended policies are presented
between three categories : Growth, Services, and
Stewardship. Services houses most of the transportation
related policies
Buckeye General Plan 2040
(Continued)
2018 - amended
in 2019 and
2022
Local
https://www.buc
keyeaz.gov/hom
e/showpublishe
ddocument/630
0/63792809631
1900000
Goal S‐11: Buckeye has a roadway system that is safe and efficient
Policy S-11.1 The City of Buckeye should plan for future transportation corridors by identifying and preserving adequate rights-of-way during the planning and development process.
Policy S-11.2 The City of Buckeye should update the Capital Improvement Plan with road improvements needed on an annual basis.
Policy S-11.3 The City of Buckeye should improve the flow of traffic by addressing missing links in the arterial network.
Policy S-11.4 The City of Buckeye should designate appropriate truck routes that provide efficient connections to industrial and commercial uses and do not adversely impact residential land
uses.
Policy S‐11.5 The City of Buckeye should continue to support the update and implementation of the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Master Plan.
Policy S‐11.6 New development should provide connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods to minimize arterial dependency
Goal S‐12: Buckeye’s multimodal system provides alternatives for modes of travel.
Policies Pages 53-93 (pdf)
Used by the City to guide Buckeye’s future relative to land
use, public services, infrastructure, and resource
management. Recommended policies are presented
between three categories : Growth, Services, and
Stewardship. Services houses most of the transportation
related policies
Downtown Buckeye
Specific Area Plan
2023 Original,
Amended in
2024
Local
https://www.buc
keyeaz.gov/hom
e/showpublishe
ddocument/130
71/6385907573
65970000
Vision:
Buckeye in 2040 is an innovative, healthy, resilient, and forward‐thinking community that is safe
and secure with diverse employment, housing, education and business opportunities.
Buckeye offers rural to urban lifestyles with a genuine sense of heritage while being good
stewards of our natural resources, open spaces, and overall quality of life.
Downtown Values:
1.) CF: Foster a community-focused downtown by creating opportunities for organic and
organized community gathering and grassroots economic activity to take place
2.) DN: Create a regionally recognized and safe day-and-night destination that has attractions and
activities all throughout the day focusing on play, entertainment, and nightlife.
3.) A: Curate an active downtown environment that has regular foot traffic, programmed events,
and recreational activities.
4.) MU: Establish mixed-use and quality public and private downtown spaces that provide
inherent flexibility for multiple purposes and changing market demands
5.) FH: Make downtown feel like home by celebrating the culture and heritage of Buckeye and
fostering a strong sense of place through physical design and cultural events
6.) DA: Build a downtown for all through accessible infrastructure, connectivity enhancements,
and attractions that make Buckeye appealing to anyone and everyone.
Policy S-11.1 The City of Buckeye should plan for future transportation corridors by identifying and preserving adequate rights-of-way during the planning and
development process.
Section 4, Page 88, Section 5,
Section 7
Extension or result of general plan that focuses on the
Downtown core of Buckeye,
Identfies auto, pedestrian, and bicyclists emphasis
corridors, and ped nodes
To identify specific opportunities to expand and improve
connectivity to and within the planning area. Some
specific components of this framework plan include auto
emphasis corridors, bike emphasis corridors, pedestrian
emphasis corridors, and bike and pedestrian emphasis
corridors
This Plan sets the consensus-built vision and roadmap for
the future of Downtown Buckeye: its growth and
development, its character, and its functionality. This
Plan reinforces and magnifies downtown’s role as the
heart and soul of the community and sets forth a realistic
set of implementation strategies that will guide future
civic and private investment in the area.
Existing Plan Review Table (With Links, Objectives, Recommendations, and Notes)
A-7
Plan Name
Year
Jurisdiction
Link
Vision / Goals / Objectives
Relevant Recommendations
Relevant Section/Pages
Notes
Gila River Vision Plan
2020
Local
https://www.buc
keyeaz.gov/hom
e/showpublishe
ddocument/798
9/63711647408
8370000
Objectives:
1. Preserve and restore existing pristine natural habitat areas in the Gila River in Buckeye;
2. Complement those preservation efforts with appropriately designed recreational opportunities
that take advantage of open water bodies and an interconnected trail system; and
3. Establish a vision for supporting land uses along the north bank of the Gila River that celebrate
the river to become a premier destination place in Buckeye.
Policy S-11.2 The City of Buckeye should update the Capital Improvement Plan with road improvements needed on an annual basis.
Pages 32, 33, 43-44
provides an overview of existing multi modal connectivity
through the gila river study area
TOD around 4th ave
Of 8 land use character types presented as part of the
vision , bike lanes are marked as a MUST for 5, while other
transportation are in the MUST, SHOULD, and COULD
categories for the other land uses
MAG - Momentum 2050 RTP
2021
Regional
https://azmag.g
ov/Portals/0/Tra
nsportation/RTP/
2022/RTP-
Momentum-
2050-
Accessible.pdf?
ver=xx2IqoCFdM-
VnZtc-
20ckQ%3d%3d
Vision:
The transportation system plays a critical role in ensuring a high quality of life for residents of the
MAG region - The purpose of the RTP is to establish a sustainable, resilient, multi-modal
transportation investment program that connects people with opportunities to prosper and thrive.
We will deliver a world-class transportation system that reflects the following mission critical
Goals:
Safety: Ensure the safety and security of pedestrians, bicyclists, riders, and drivers.
Mobility; Ensure ease of movement for people and goods throughout the region; providing
equitable and appropriate access to essential services and destinations
Prosperity;
Support economic competitiveness and growth through strategic transportation investments
Responsiveness:
Expand travel choice that accommodate future growth and are flexible in adapting to changing
needs and innovations
Livability:
Invest in a transportation system that supports health and well-being and sustains the
environment
Preservation:
Maintain our regions transportation infrastructure to protect existing investments for the future
Policy S-11.3 The City of Buckeye should improve the flow of traffic by addressing missing links in the arterial network.
Entire Document
Presents current and future conditions as well as
investment strategies and funding sources for
improvements
MAG Complete Streets
Guide
2011
Regional
Goals:
A Regional Complete Street Policy:
Provides clear and consistent standards for Complete Streets among jurisdictions, and guidance
to the development community. Includes performance measures (inventory and outcome,
including TIP program tie-in) and implementation actions. Is relevant to all types of streets and all
jurisdictions, and addresses funding opportunities.
Complete Streets:
Are context-sensitive, integrated into transportation planning, sustainable, fundable, and
implementable. They accommodate all modes and users, including emergency services and
transit, while supporting interaction and accessibility for people of all abilities.
They create inclusive, safe environments for all ages and abilities, contribute to roadway capacity,
property values, public health, environmental quality, and sense of place, and increase
connectivity, travel options, efficiency, safety, transit use, school walking rates, access to
destinations, and compliance with speed limits.
Policy S-11.4 The City of Buckeye should designate appropriate truck routes that provide efficient connections to industrial and commercial uses and do not
adversely impact residential land uses.
MAG - Strategic
Transportation Safety Plan
2021
Regional
https://azmag.g
ov/Portals/0/Do
cuments/Transp
ortation/STSP/ST
SP_2021-06-
30_Strategic-
Transportation-
System-Plan.pdf
Vision:
Everyone stays safe traveling from place to place
Goals:
Reduce the severity and number of people impacted by crashes
Policy S‐11.5 The City of Buckeye should continue to support the update and implementation of the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Master Plan.
Appendix A
Includes implementation costs and funding sources
Each strategy is presented with participants listed,
effectiveness, schedule, and performance measures
Existing Plan Review Table (With Links, Objectives, Recommendations, and Notes)
A-8
Plan Name
Year
Jurisdiction
Link
Vision / Goals / Objectives
Relevant Recommendations
Relevant Section/Pages
Notes
ADOT - Complete
Transportation Guidebook
2016
Regional
https://azdot.go
v/sites/default/fi
les/2019/08/ctg
uidebook.pdf
NA
Policy S‐11.6 New development should provide connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods to minimize arterial dependency
Chapter 2
This document was created in 2016 as a tool to include
sustainable practices in transportation planning efforts
for the state of Arizona. The guidebook complements
other ADOT strategies, goals, and values. The Complete
Transportation Guidebook establishes sustainable
strategies and tools to help move people, not just
vehicles. - Summary from 2023 Vulnerable User Report
2050 ADOT LRTP
2023
Regional
https://www.ado
t2050plan.com/
Vision:
Connecting Arizona.
Better Lives Through Better Transportation.
Goals:
1.) Promote Environmental & Health Stewardship
2.) Support Equitable Access
3.) Strengthen Partnerships
4.) Improve Mobility, Reliability, & Accessibility
5.) Preserve & Maintain the System
6.) Support Economic Vitality
7.) Enhance Safety & Security
Pages 19-24
Provides information regarding the existing and future
condition of the state transportation system, and provide
direction to the state, metropolitan planning organizations
(MPOs) and councils of government (COGS), and Arizona
residents about transportation needs, available revenues,
and system performance over a 25-year period
ADOT - Bicyclist Safety
Action Plan
2018
Regional
https://activetra
nsportation.az.g
ov/sites/default/
files/documents
/files/Bicyclist-
Safety-Action-
Plan.pdf
Objectives:
~ Evaluate the strategies, progress, and effectiveness of the 2012 BSAP to reduce the frequency of
bicycle crashes.
~ Collect and analyze bicycle crash data on the SHS for the most recent five years available
(20122016). Identify crash types and review contributing factors to the crashes.
~ Identify high-priority bicyclist crash locations.
~ Identify specific steps, actions, and potential countermeasures that, upon implementation and
over time, will measurably reduce bicycle crashes, injuries, and fatalities on the SHS.
Goal S‐12: Buckeye’s multimodal system provides alternatives for modes of travel.
Entire Document, Pg 97
ADOT - AZ Strategic
Highway Safety Plan
2019
Regional
https://azdot.go
v/sites/default/fi
les/2019/10/az-
stsp-report-
2019.pdf
Vision:
Toward zero deaths by reducing crashes for a safer Arizona
Goals:
Reduce traffic fatalities on Arizona Roadways
5 Emphasis Areas:
~Highway Safety (Behavior Related)
~Intersections
~Lane Departure
~Pedestrians
~Safety Related Data
Strategies presented through the lens of the Education, Enforcement, and Engineering per emphasis
Includes general strategies common to all areas such as Emergency Medical Services and Coordination with Tribal Communities
Entire Document
pg. 29-42, 43
Statewide coordinated plan that provides a
comprehensive framework for reducing fatalities and
serious injuries on all public roads.
Emphasis areas are closely tied with MAG Strategic
Transportation Safety Plan 2021
MAG - Active Transportation
Pan
2020
Regional
https://azmag.g
ov/Programs/Tra
nsportation/Acti
ve-
Transportation/A
ctive-
Transportation-
Plan
Goals:
1.) Increase the active transportation mode share to 30 percent by 2040
2.) Achieve zero pedestrian and bicycle traffic fatalities by 2030
3.) Increase the percentage of people getting enough physical activity to 80 percent by 2040
~Focus on short trips as a key to mode shift
~Build more high comfort networks
~Manage vehicle speeds
~Integrate active transportation and transit
~Count active transportation trips
Principles for each are Equity and Inclusion, Safety, Comfort and Connectivity
Presents local agencies with a toolbox of ideas to integrate this plan/active transport into city policy:
~Build high quality infrastructure within the Active Transportation Grid
~Adopt Policies or ordinances that support complete streets
~Establish a safe system policy
~Update street design standards and guidelines
~Support supportive land use and development regulations
~Update parking requirements
~Dedicate resources for active transportation
~Become a walk-friendly and bike-friendly community (WFC/BFC)
Entire Document
The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Active
Transportation Plan (ATP) aims to shift the Valley’s culture
from being car-centric to people-centric, and to create a
happier, healthier, and more economically competitive
region.
Existing Plan Review Table (With Links, Objectives, Recommendations, and Notes)
A-9
Plan Name
Year
Jurisdiction
Link
Vision / Goals / Objectives
Relevant Recommendations
Relevant Section/Pages
Notes
USDOT Safe Systems
Approach and National
Roadway Safety Strategy
NA
National
https://www.tra
nsportation.gov/
NRSS/SafeSyste
m
Principles of a Safe System Approach
This is a circular diagram about the Safe System Approach. On the circumference is a band with
six safe system principles: Death and serious injuries are unacceptable, humans make mistakes,
humans are vulnerable, responsibility is shared, safety is proactive, and redundancy is crucial.
Inside this, the circle is divided into five sections with logos representing each section: Safer
vehicles, safer speeds, safer roads, post-crash care, and safer people.A Safe System
Objectives:
Safer People:Encourage safe, responsible driving and behavior by people who use our roads and create conditions that prioritize their ability to reach their destination unharmed.The safety of
people is U.S. DOT’s core mission. Enabling people to be safer includes actions to encourage safer behaviors among the driving public, commercial drivers, and all road users. People generally use
the roadway system in a safe manner on any given trip, but mistakes, lapses in judgment, and other more significant risky behaviors still occur.
Behavioral Safety Factors
The three most frequent and persistent behavioral safety factors in fatal crashes are:
1. People in motor vehicles not wearing seat belts
2. Driving while impaired from alcohol
3. Speeding
Safer Roads: A street with a raised median and a marked crosswalk at a roundabout with yield signs and a school bus stopped for boarding passengers at the opposite entrance of the roundabout.
Design roadway environments to mitigate human mistakes and account for injury tolerances, to encourage safer behaviors, and to facilitate safe travel by the most vulnerable users.
Roadway design strongly influences how people use roadways. The environment around the roadway system—including land use and the intersections of highways, roads, and streets with other
transportation modes such as rail and transit—also shapes the safety risks borne by the traveling public. U.S. DOT has advanced an initiative to develop a growing collection of Proven Safety
Countermeasures that offers effective strategies to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on our Nation’s roadways. Transportation agencies are strongly encouraged to consider widespread
implementation of countermeasures to accelerate the achievement of local, State, Tribal, and National safety goals. These strategies are designed for all road users and all types of roads—from
rural to urban, from high-volume freeways to less traveled two-lane State and county roads, from signalized crossings to horizontal curves, and everything in between.
Proven Safety Countermeasures
The Proven Safety Countermeasures initiative is a collection of countermeasures and strategies effective in reducing roadway fatalities and serious injuries on our Nation’s highways.
Dashboard:
https://explore.dot.gov/views/NRSSDashboard/Dashbo
ard/025c8cf8-3df9-4f3a-b680-254084afa5c1/9c2afe2f-
42b8-45ec-9d83-
a0a3d7bc4cb2?%3Aembed=y&%3AisGuestRedirectFr
omVizportal=y%3AshowAppBanner&%3Adisplay_count
=n&%3AshowVizHome=n&%3Aorigin=viz_share_link&
%3Atoolbar=no&%3A%3Aembed=yes
USDOT Safe Systems
Approach and National
Roadway Safety Strategy
(Continued)
NA
National
https://www.tra
nsportation.gov/
NRSS/SafeSyste
m
Approach incorporates the following principles:
Death and Serious Injuries are Unacceptable
A Safe System Approach prioritizes the elimination of crashes that result in death and serious
injuries.
Humans Make Mistakes
People will inevitably make mistakes and decisions that can lead or contribute to crashes, but the
transportation system can be designed and operated to accommodate certain types and levels of
human mistakes and avoid death and serious injuries when a crash occurs.
Humans Are Vulnerable
Human bodies have physical limits for tolerating crash forces before death or serious injury
occurs; therefore, it is critical to design and operate a transportation system that is human-centric
and accommodates physical human vulnerabilities.
Responsibility is Shared
All stakeholders—including government at all levels, industry, non-profit/advocacy, researchers,
and the general public—are vital to preventing fatalities and serious injuries on our roadways.
Safety is Proactive
Proactive tools should be used to identify and address safety issues in the transportation system,
rather than waiting for crashes to occur and react afterwards.
Redundancy is Crucial
Reducing risks requires that all parts of the transportation system be strengthened, so that if one
part fails, the other parts still protect people.
Safer Vehicles: Two people stand examining a new vehicle on the showroom floor of a car dealership. Expand the availability of vehicle systems and features that help to prevent crashes and
minimize the impact of crashes on both occupants and non-occupants. The role of vehicle safety performance in avoiding or mitigating the harm of crashes cannot be overstated. Seat belts and air
bags, for example, prevented an estimated 425,000 fatalities in traffic crashes since they were first required through regulatory requirements called the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(FMVSS). The next generation of motor vehicles will increasingly have the technology necessary to prevent certain crashes from occurring in the first place and to mitigate harm to those outside of
the vehicle when a crash happens. This is particularly important as the proportion of roadway fatalities involving people outside of a vehicle has increased over the past few years.
Deploying Advanced Vehicle Safety Technologies: The deployment of technologies to improve vehicle safety has rapidly accelerated in the last five years. Data from the New Car Assessment
Program shows substantial increases over time in the percentage of passenger motor vehicles equipped with advanced driver assistance system technologies.
Improving Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety: Enabling safer vehicles also means employing strategies to improve the safety of the commercial motor vehicles that transport goods and carry
thousands of passengers locally and across the country every day.
Safer Speeds: School Zone sign: Speed Limit 20 when flashing. Promote safer speeds in all roadway environments through a combination of thoughtful, equitable, context-appropriate roadway
design, targeted education, outreach campaigns, and enforcement. The Department believes it is important to prioritize safety and moving individuals at safe speeds.1 Both exceeding the posted
speed limit and driving too fast for conditions are speeding-related crash factors.
The Effects of Speed on Roadway Fatalities
Speeding increases both the frequency and severity of crashes, yet it is both persistent and largely accepted as the norm amongst the traveling public.2 Unsafe speeds are a well-documented and
understood factor in death and injury, especially among people outsid+D13e of a vehicle. Managing speeds and addressing issues of speeding will improve safety.
Post-Crash Care: A fire truck and ambulance with EMS crews respond at the scene of a car crash. Enhance the survivability of crashes through expedient access to emergency medical care, while
creating a safe working environment for vital first responders and preventing secondary crashes through robust traffic incident management practices. Our ability to save lives does not end when a
crash occurs. Appropriate medical care for people injured in a crash to prevent their injuries from becoming fatal is critical. The timely arrival of emergency responders and well-trained Emergency
Medical Services (EMS) clinicians is a major factor ensuring an injured person receives the medical care they need to survive a crash. This is especially critical in rural and Tribal communities, where
response times are longer and EMS resources more limited. Access to Emergency and Trauma Care Is Critical to the Survivability of Crashes
Existing Plan Review Table (With Links, Objectives, Recommendations, and Notes)
A-10
Plan Name
Year
Jurisdiction
Link
Vision / Goals / Objectives
Relevant Recommendations
Relevant Section/Pages
Notes
Vision Zero Network
NA
National
https://visionzer
onetwork.org/co
re-elements/
Vision Zero is a strategy to eliminate roadway deaths and severe injuries, while increasing safe,
healthy, equitable mobility for all. It is built on the belief that all people have the right to safe
mobility. The foundation of Vision Zero is the Safe System approach, which recognizes that people
will sometimes make mistakes and that human bodies are vulnerable.
Traffic Deaths Are Preventable
Integrate Human Failing In Approach
Prevent Fatal And Severe Crashes
Systems Approach
Saving Lives Is Not Expensive
1.Public, high-level, and ongoing commitment. The mayor and key elected oƯicials and leaders within public agencies, including transportation, public health, and police, commit to the goal of
eliminating traffic fatalities and serious injuries within a specific timeframe. Leadership across these agencies consistently prioritizes safety via a collaborative working group and other resource-
sharing efforts
2. Authentic engagement. Meaningful and accessible community engagement toward vision zero strategy and implementation is employed, with a focus on equity. Engage the community in
meaningful, culturally-relevant ways and support involvement by respected community leaders. Prioritize support of communities most impacted by traffic crashes and most traditionally
underserved by safety efforts.
3. Strategic planning. A vision zero action plan is developed, approved, and used to guide work. The plan includes explicit goals and measurable strategies with clear timelines, and it identifies
responsible stakeholders. The action plan and corresponding strategies are built on the safe systems approach by designing and maintaining a transportation system where human error does not
result in loss of life or severe injury. Leadership across these agencies consistently prioritizes safety via a collaborative working group and other resource-sharing efforts.
4. Project delivery. Decision-makers and system designers advance projects and policies for safe, equitable multi-modal travel by securing funding and implementing projects, prioritizing
roadways with the most pressing safety issues. Decision-makers provide leadership on policy reforms needed to prioritize safety. System designers are supported by city leaders to advance safety
projects. System designers and decision-makers advance crosscutting measures to reduce car dependence, improve transit, and support safe walking and biking.
5. Complete streets for all. Complete streets concepts are integrated into community wide plans and implemented through projects to encourage a safe, well-connected transportation network for
people using all modes of transportation. This prioritizes safe travel of people over expeditious travel of motor vehicles. Multimodal street design and countermeasures prioritize safety over speed.
Safety improvements to roadways are prioritized for people walking and biking and in historically underserved communities.
6. Context-appropriate speeds. Travel speeds are set and managed to achieve safe conditions for the specific roadway context and to protect all roadway users, particularly those most at risk in
crashes. Proven speed management policies and practices are prioritized to reach this goal. Roadways are designed (or redesigned) to prioritize safety over speed. Speed limits are lowered where
data and community experience show need. Automated speed enforcement is implemented where needed, with strategies to address disproportionate impacts on low-income communities.
Vision Zero Network
(Continued)
NA
National
https://visionzer
onetwork.org/co
re-elements/
Vision Zero is a strategy to eliminate roadway deaths and severe injuries, while increasing safe,
healthy, equitable mobility for all. It is built on the belief that all people have the right to safe
mobility. The foundation of Vision Zero is the Safe System approach, which recognizes that people
will sometimes make mistakes and that human bodies are vulnerable.
Traffic Deaths Are Preventable
Integrate Human Failing In Approach
Prevent Fatal And Severe Crashes
Systems Approach
Saving Lives Is Not Expensive
7. Equity-focused analysis and programs. Commitment is made to an equitable approach and outcomes, including prioritizing engagement and investments in traditionally under-served
communities and adopting equitable traffic enforcement practices. Explicit commitment and actions prevent vision zero efforts from increasing disproportionate enforcement levels in
communities of color. Any enforcement efforts within vision zero are focused on dangerous moving violations, as identified by quality data analysis.
8. Systemic, proactive planning. A proactive, systems-based approach to safety is used to identify and address top risk factors and mitigate potential crashes and crash severity. Data is used to
identify trends of problems, which are addressed systematically rather than as isolated incidents.
9. Responsive, hot spot planning. A map of the community’s fatal and serious injury crash locations is developed, regularly updated, and used to guide priority actions and funding. • top risk
factors and locations of serious traffic crashes are identified, mapped, and utilized • quality data on traffic deaths and serious injuries are posted publicly and updated regularly
10. Comprehensive evaluation and adjustments. Routine evaluation of the performance of all safety interventions is made public and shared with decision makers to inform priorities, budgets, and
updates to the vision zero action plan. Regular progress reports are produced and shared publicly. Use of pilot implementation and community feedback shape safety efforts.
USDOT SS4A Objectives
and Requirements
NA
National
https://www.tra
nsportation.gov/
grants/SS4A
The SS4A program funds regional, local, and Tribal initiatives through grants to prevent roadway
deaths and serious injuries.
The purpose of SS4A grant program is to improve roadway safety by significantly reducing or
eliminating roadway fatalities and serious injuries. The program focuses on the development of a
comprehensive safety action plan and its implementation for all users of our highways, streets,
and roadways, including pedestrians, bicyclists, public transportation users, motorists, personal
conveyance and micromobility users, and commercial vehicle operators. The program provides
funding to develop tools to strengthen a community’s approach to roadway safety and save lives
and prevent serious harm.
The scope and scale of eligible safety projects and strategies can range from specific spot
treatment to corridors to interventions across a broad geographic area. The selection criterion
Safety Impact includes the extent to which an application “employs low-cost, high-impact
strategies that can improve safety over a wide geographic area.” Applicants are encouraged to
consider systemic approaches to the extent they address a community’s safety problems.
Action Plans MUST
#3 - Does the Action Plan include all of the following? •Analysis of existing conditions and historical trends to baseline the level of crashes involving fatalities and serious injuries across a
jurisdiction, locality, Tribe, or region; •Analysis of the location where there are crashes, the severity, as well as contributing factors and crash types; •Analysis of systemic and specific safety needs is
also performed, as needed (e.g., high risk road features, specific safety needs of relevant road users; and, •A geospatial identification (geographic or locational data using maps) of higher risk
locations.
#7 - Does the plan identify a comprehensive set of projects and strategies to address the safety problems in the Action Plan, time ranges when projects and strategies will be deployed, and explain
project prioritization criteria?
#9 - Was the plan finalized and/or last updated between 2018 and June 2023? (SUBJECT TO CHANGE EVERY GRANT CYCLE)
Some of these commitments could be overarching goals
of the planning effort/process.
Existing Plan Review Table (With Links, Objectives, Recommendations, and Notes)
A-11
Plan Name
Year
Jurisdiction
Link
Vision / Goals / Objectives
Relevant Recommendations
Relevant Section/Pages
Notes
USDOT SS4A Objectives
and Requirements
(Continued)
NA
National
https://www.tra
nsportation.gov/
grants/SS4A
The SS4A program funds regional, local, and Tribal initiatives through grants to prevent roadway
deaths and serious injuries.
The purpose of SS4A grant program is to improve roadway safety by significantly reducing or
eliminating roadway fatalities and serious injuries. The program focuses on the development of a
comprehensive safety action plan and its implementation for all users of our highways, streets,
and roadways, including pedestrians, bicyclists, public transportation users, motorists, personal
conveyance and micromobility users, and commercial vehicle operators. The program provides
funding to develop tools to strengthen a community’s approach to roadway safety and save lives
and prevent serious harm.
The scope and scale of eligible safety projects and strategies can range from specific spot
treatment to corridors to interventions across a broad geographic area. The selection criterion
Safety Impact includes the extent to which an application “employs low-cost, high-impact
strategies that can improve safety over a wide geographic area.” Applicants are encouraged to
consider systemic approaches to the extent they address a community’s safety problems.
MUST ANSWER YES TO 4 OF 6 QUESTIONS
#1 - Are both of the following true? •Did a high-ranking official and/or governing body in the jurisdiction publicly commit to an eventual goal of zero roadway fatalities and serious injuries? •Did the
commitment include either setting a target date to reach zero, OR setting one or more targets to achieve significant declines in roadway fatalities and serious injuries by a specific date?
#2 - To develop the Action Plan, was a committee, task force, implementation group, or similar body established and charged with the plan’s development, implementation, and monitoring?
#4 - Did the Action Plan development include all of the following activities? • Engagement with the public and relevant stakeholders, including the private sector and community groups; •
Incorporation of information received from the engagement and collaboration into the plan; and • Coordination that included inter- and intra-governmental cooperation and collaboration, as
appropriate.
#5 - Did the Action Plan development include all of the following? • Considerations of equity using inclusive and representative processes; • The identification of underserved communities through
data; and • Equity analysis, in collaboration with appropriate partners, focused on initial equity impact assessments of the proposed projects and strategies, and population characteristics.
#6 - Are both of the following true? • The plan development included an assessment of current policies, plans, guidelines, and/or standards to identify opportunities to improve how processes
prioritize safety; and • The plan discusses implementation through the adoption of revised or new policies, guidelines, and/or standards.
#8 - Does the plan include all of the following? • A description of how progress will be measured over time that includes, at a minimum, outcome data. • The plan is posted publicly online.
Some of these commitments could be overarching goals
of the planning effort/process.
6 Es of Safety
NA
National
https://saferout
espartnership.or
g/safe-routes-
school/
https://saferout
espartnership.or
g/safe-routes-
school/6-es/
Six E's Framework:
ENGAGEMENT – All Safe Routes to School initiatives should begin by listening to students,
families, teachers, and school leaders and working with existing community organizations, and
build intentional, ongoing engagement opportunities into the program structure.
EQUITY – Ensuring that Safe Routes to School initiatives are benefiting all demographic groups,
with particular attention to ensuring safe, healthy, and fair outcomes for low-income students,
students of color, students of all genders, students with disabilities, and others.
ENGINEERING – Creating physical improvements to streets and neighborhoods that make walking
and bicycling safer, more comfortable, and more convenient.
ENCOURAGEMENT – Generating enthusiasm and increased walking and bicycling for students
through events, activities, and programs.
EDUCATION – Providing students and the community with the skills to walk and bicycle safely,
educating them about benefits of walking and bicycling, and teaching them about the broad range
of transportation choices.
EVALUATION – Assessing which approaches are more or less successful, ensuring that programs
and initiatives are supporting equitable outcomes, and identifying unintended consequences or
opportunities to improve the effectiveness of each approach.
National Roadway Safety
Strategy - USDOT
NA
National
https://www.tra
nsportation.gov/
NRSS
Together, we must strive for zero roadway fatalities. Zero is the only acceptable number of deaths
on our highways, roads, and streets. The United States Department of Transportation is
committed to taking substantial, comprehensive action to significantly reduce serious and fatal
injuries on the Nation’s roadways. However, no one will reach this goal acting alone. Reaching
zero will require U.S. DOT to work with the entire roadway transportation community and the
American people to lead a significant cultural shift that treats roadway deaths as unacceptable
and preventable.
The United States Department of Transportation National Roadway Safety Strategy (NRSS)
outlines the Department’s comprehensive approach to significantly reducing serious injuries and
deaths on our Nation’s highways, roads, and streets. This is the first step in working toward an
ambitious long-term goal of reaching zero roadway fatalities. Safety is U.S. DOT’s top priority, and
the NRSS represents a Department-wide approach to working with stakeholders across the
country to achieve this goal.
The NRSS sets a vision and goal for the safety of the Nation’s roadways, adopts the Safe System
Approach principles to guide our safety actions, and identifies critical and significant actions the
Department will take now in pursuit of five core objectives: Safer People, Safer Roads, Safer
Vehicles, Safer Speeds, and Post-Crash Care.
U.S. DOT adopts the Safe System Approach as the guiding paradigm to address roadway safety.
FHWA’s Proven Safety
Countermeasures initiative
(PSCi)
NA
National
https://highways
.dot.gov/safety/
proven-safety-
countermeasure
s
The FHWA has identified and is promoting widespread use of a set of 28 Proven Safety
Countermeasures that can offer significant, measurable impacts as part of any agency’s
data-driven, systemic approach to improving safety. These strategies are designed to enhance
safety on all kinds of roads—from rural to urban, from high-volume freeways to less traveled two-
lane State and county roads, from signalized crossings to horizontal curves, and everything in
between. Each countermeasure addresses speed management, intersections, roadway
departures, or pedestrians/ bicyclists— along with crosscutting strategies that address all four
safety focus areas.
Existing Plan Review Table (With Links, Objectives, Recommendations, and Notes)
A-12
Page 32
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX B:
CRASH ANALYSIS
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 1
MEMORANDUM
Date
July 23, 2025
To
Craig Sharp
Project Engineer (Traffic)
City of Buckeye Engineering
csharp@buckeyeaz.gov
(623) 695-7464
From
Y2K Engineering
Subject
City of Buckeye Transportation Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
OVERVIEW
The City of Buckeye is currently in the process of developing a TransportaƟon Safety Plan which
will inform the City's strategic approach to enhancing roadway safety. This project involves a
review of current safety trends, exisƟng programs and processes, and public and stakeholder
involvement to create a vision and plan for the future. The purpose of this document is to provide
an overview of historical crash trends within the City of Buckeye study area over the study period
of 2019 to 2023. Crash trends have been evaluated across the enƟre study area and further
analyzed by key geographic filters, including Arizona Department of TransportaƟon (ADOT)
faciliƟes, the developed areas of Buckeye and the undeveloped areas of the study area. The
analysis explores when crashes have occurred, who was involved and where and why they
happened, highlighƟng common characterisƟcs of crashes throughout Buckeye.
METHODOLOGY
The crash data used in this analysis was obtained from the ADOT crash database. Crashes included
in this database represent crashes with injuries or fataliƟes, uninsured drivers, more than 1,000
dollars in damages as a result of the crash, alcohol or drugs involved and/or by driver request.
The data presented here is the latest available data; however, it is subject to change as new
informaƟon is obtained and more refinements are performed.
The City of Buckeye provided a boundary of the planned city denoted as the Buckeye Planning
Area. The study area was defined by applying a 200-foot buffer to the Buckeye Planning Area
B-1
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 2
boundary. This ensures that crashes at intersecƟons on the edge of the boundary are included in
the analysis. Crashes within the study area were included in the crash analysis. The study area
includes roadways owned by the City of Buckeye, Maricopa County Department of TransportaƟon
(MCDOT), and ADOT. Crashes on I-10 were excluded from analysis except for I-10 traffic
interchanges.
To beƩer understand crash trends across different roadway environments, crashes within the
study area were classified into three categories: those within ADOT right-of-way, those located in
developed areas of the City of Buckeye, and those in the city’s more rural, undeveloped areas.
This contextual classificaƟon allows for more targeted analysis and deeper insights.
The ADOT right-of-way within the City of Buckeye study area consists of State Route 85 (SR-85)
and Interstate 10 (I-10). The ADOT study area excludes the I-10 mainline but includes the traffic
interchanges along I-10. In total, the ADOT right-of-way includes the SR-85 mainline as well as the
traffic interchanges at SR-85 and I-10. The developed area of Buckeye refers to porƟons of the
study area that have been ‘built out’, which typically includes dense residenƟal and commercial
developments. The developed area of Buckeye was established specifically for this project in
coordinaƟon with City of Buckeye staff. The undeveloped area refers to the parts of the study area
that consist primarily of farmland, agriculture, low-density residenƟal, or open land. This area
typically includes sparse development with fewer homes and businesses. If the area was not
marked as ADOT or developed, then it was marked as undeveloped. A map of the study area
showing the different regions of Buckeye is displayed in Figure 1, with undeveloped areas
represented by the porƟons not labeled as ADOT or developed.
B-2
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 3
Figure 1: Study Area by Region, City of Buckeye
DEFINITIONS
Throughout this memorandum, a few specific terms will be used. They are defined below.
KSI - Killed and Serious Injury Crashes – killed and serious Injury (KSI) crashes are crashes that
result in one or more fataliƟes or serious injuries. Serious injuries are defined as broken
extremiƟes, severe laceraƟons, paralysis, etc. Fatal crashes are defined when one or more people
die within 30 days of the crash because of the injuries sustained in the collision. These collisions
correspond to “K” and “A” injuries on the KABCO scale.
Crash Type – crash types were defined according to the Arizona Crash Report Forms InstrucƟon
Manual, 13th EdiƟon (August 2023).
First Harmful Event – the first harmful event is the first point of injury or damage in the sequence
of events in a crash.
B-3
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 4
Buckeye Developed Area – this area, as defined by the boundary shown in Figure 1, represents
porƟons of Buckeye that were built at the Ɵme of analysis. It is intended to capture the city's
developed urban and suburban landscape for the purposes of contextual crash analysis.
Vulnerable Road User – any person who uses the road without the protecƟve enclosure of a
vehicle and is at greater risk of injury or death in the event of a crash.
OVERALL CRASH SUMMARY
Summary
From 2019 to 2023, a total of 4,427 crashes were reported in the City of Buckeye, and 52 fatal
crashes and 133 serious injury crashes were reported in Buckeye during the study period, bringing
the total number of KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured) crashes during that period to 185. There were
40 collisions with pedestrians and 25 bicyclist collisions. 108 motorcycle crashes happened from
2019 to 2023, 11 resulƟng in fataliƟes.
When
By Year
Since 2019, the total number of crashes within the City of Buckeye has generally increased, with
a larger number of crashes from 2021 to 2023. The most crashes occurred in 2022 with 1,149
crashes while the lowest number of crashes occurred in 2020 with 620 crashes. The decline in
crashes observed in 2020 is likely aƩributable to the COVID-19 pandemic, during which stay-at-
home orders significantly reduced traffic volumes and overall roadway exposure. Although KSI
crash numbers have remained relaƟvely steady over the study period—ranging from 28 to 45
annually— the number of fatal crashes has gradually increased, reaching a high of 15 in 2023.
Figure 2 shows the number of crashes by injury severity for each year in the analysis period.
Figure 3 shows the number of fatal and serious injury crashes from 2019 to 2023.
B-4
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 5
Figure 2: Total Number of Crashes per Year by Injury Severity, Buckeye, 2019-2023
Figure 3: Total Number of KSI Crashes per Year, Buckeye, 2019-2023
B-5
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 6
Between 2019 and 2023, Buckeye, Arizona's populaƟon grew from approximately 79,600 to
108,900—an increase of nearly 37% in five years—solidifying its status as one of the fastest-
growing ciƟes in the United States during this period. The rapid populaƟon growth has led to
increased numbers of drivers and vehicles on the road, raising exposure and highlighƟng the
importance of ongoing efforts to improve roadway safety and reduce crashes.
By Month
Figure 4 shows the frequency of crashes in Buckeye by month. The month with the greatest
number of crashes was November with 426 crashes, while July saw the lowest number of crashes
with 297 crashes. There was an increase in the frequency of crashes during the winter season and
a notable drop-off in the summer. April and November saw a peak in the crash frequency before
decreasing in the subsequent months.
The frequency of serious injury and fatal crashes by month is shown in Figure 5. The greatest
frequency of serious injury crashes happened in April (15 crashes) followed by January (14
crashes). June and August experienced the lowest number of serious injuries with 8 and 7 crashes,
respecƟvely. The highest number of fatal crashes occurred in September (9 crashes) followed by
April and May (6 crashes each). Fatal crash frequency was greatest during spring and fall, while it
was the lowest in the winter and summer seasons.
Figure 4: Number of Crashes by Month, Buckeye, 2019-2023
378
343
389
408
363
310
297
341
381
379
426
412
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Number of Crashes
All Crashes
B-6
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 7
Figure 5: Number of KSI Crashes by Month, Buckeye, 2019-2023
By Day of Week
The distribuƟon of crashes by weekday is shown in Figure 6. Crashes occurred most frequently
on Fridays, while the fewest crashes happened on Sundays. Serious injury crashes occurred most
on Wednesdays, Thursdays and Sundays and least on Tuesdays. Fatal crashes occurred primarily
on the weekends from Friday to Sunday and occurred less commonly during the week. Serious
injury and fatal crashes by day of the week are displayed in Figure 7.
Figure 6: Number of Crashes by Day of the Week, Buckeye, 2019-2023
14
12
9
15
12
8
9
7
13
9
12
13
5
5
6
6
3
3
3
9
4
5
3
Number of Crashes
Incapacitating (A)
Fatal (K)
616
656
639
648
729
635
504
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
B-7
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 8
Figure 7: Number of KSI Crashes by Day of the Week, Buckeye, 2019-2023
By Time of Day
Crashes had an AM peak from 7:00 to 8:00 AM and PM peak from 3:00 to 5:00 PM. The majority
of crashes (65%) occurred under daylight lighƟng condiƟons while just over a quarter of crashes
(27%) happened under dark lighƟng condiƟons. Crashes were most frequent in the aŌernoon and
evening hours from 12:00 PM to 8:00 PM. Crashes involving impairment were most common in
the evening and nighƫme from 3:00 PM to 4:00 AM. Over half of crashes (54%) involving
impairment happened during dark lighƟng condiƟons. KSI crashes occurred steadily throughout
the day from 11:00 AM to 12:00 AM with a peak from 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM. The daily crash
distribuƟon by Ɵme of day is shown below in Figure 8. KSI crash distribuƟon throughout the day
is displayed in Figure 9.
17
12
23
22
18
17
24
3
5
3
5
11
15
10
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Incapacitating (A)
Fatal (K)
B-8
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 9
Figure 8: Number of Crashes by Hour and LighƟng CondiƟon, Buckeye, 2019-2023
Figure 9: Number of KSI Crashes by Hour and LighƟng CondiƟon, Buckeye, 2019-2023
Where (KSI and Non-KSI)
The majority of crashes within the Buckeye study area from 2019 to 2023 occurred within the
developed area of Buckeye. The developed area is where a majority of Buckeye residents live and
travel to and from to access residenƟal communiƟes and commercial businesses. The heat map
in Figure 10 shows the locaƟon of crashes.
B-9
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 10
Figure 10: Heat Map of Crashes, Buckeye, 2019-2023
B-10
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 11
Top Roadways
Crashes were assigned to an intersecƟon if they occurred within 150 feet of an intersecƟon. A
majority of the crashes in the study area happened at an intersecƟon (3,221 crashes, 73% of
total), while 1,206 crashes (27% of total) were not assigned to an intersecƟon and were classified
as non-intersecƟon crashes. The roadway with the most non-intersecƟon crashes was SR-85,
which accounted for 151 crashes. Watson Road and Yuma Road followed next with 121 and 117
crashes, respecƟvely. A list of the top 10 roadways, sorted by non-intersecƟon crash frequency, is
shown in Figure 11.
Figure 11: Non-IntersecƟon Crashes by Roadway Segment, Buckeye, 2019-2023
Considering only KSI crashes, the roadway with the greatest KSI crash frequency was Old US
Highway 80 with 12 crashes. SR-85 had the second highest KSI crash frequency with 8 crashes
while Baseline Road ranked third with 7 crashes. Eight other roadways recorded at least 2 KSI
crashes from 2019 to 2023. The list of roadways sorted by non-intersecƟon KSI crashes is
displayed in Figure 12.
B-11
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 12
Figure 12: Non-IntersecƟon KSI Crashes by Roadway Segment, Buckeye, 2019-2023
Top IntersecƟons
The majority of crashes occurred at intersecƟons within the City of Buckeye (3,221 crashes, 73%
of total). Of those intersecƟon crashes, 73% (2,436 crashes) happened at unsignalized
intersecƟons, while 27% (785 crashes) were reported at signalized intersecƟons. The top
intersecƟon in terms of crash frequency was Watson Road and Yuma Road which recorded 125
crashes. The next ranked intersecƟon was Sundance Avenue and Watson Road with 74 crashes,
followed by Verrado Way and Yuma Road with 60 crashes. The list of intersecƟons by crash
frequency is shown in Figure 13. Note that some intersecƟons that were unsignalized have
recently become signalized, therefore some intersecƟons have crashes noted as both signalized
and unsignalized.
B-12
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 13
Figure 13: Crashes by IntersecƟon, Buckeye, 2019-2023
KSI crashes were commonly reported at intersecƟons with SR-85. The top intersecƟon in regard
to KSI crashes was Broadway Road and NB SR-85 with 5 crashes. Both the NB SR-85 intersecƟons
with Baseline Road and Southern Avenue each recorded 4 KSI crashes from 2019 to 2023 in
Buckeye. Three other intersecƟons experienced 3 KSI crashes, while 13 intersecƟons recorded 2
KSI crashes. The top intersecƟons listed by KSI crash frequency are shown in Figure 14.
Figure 14: KSI Crashes by IntersecƟon, Buckeye, 2019-2023
B-13
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 14
Who
Drivers ages 15 to 19 years old made up the largest group of drivers involved in crashes from 2019
to 2023, represenƟng 18% of the crashes in Buckeye. The majority of crashes (56%) involved male
drivers as the driver of Unit 1 (the driver considered at fault for the crash). Pedestrians and
bicyclists (vulnerable road users) were involved in 65 crashes, where a collision between a vehicle
and either a pedestrian or bicyclist occurred. Pedestrians and bicyclists aged 10 through 14
represented the largest group of vulnerable road users involved in these crashes, with nearly 25%
of all pedestrian and bicyclist crashes involving someone aged 14 or younger. Male vulnerable
road users were more than twice as likely to be involved in a crash compared to female vulnerable
road users. The distribuƟon of drivers and vulnerable road users by age and gender is shown in
Figure 15.
The majority of drivers (Unit 1) involved in KSI crashes were male (73%). Consistent with trends
reflecƟng all crashes, drivers aged 15 to 19 were involved in more KSI crashes than any other age
group. The frequency of drivers involved in KSI crashes decreased as age increased, indicaƟng that
younger drivers were more likely to be involved in KSI crashes. From 2019 to 2023, 79% of
pedestrians and bicyclists involved in KSI vulnerable road user crashes were male. Drivers and
vulnerable road users by age and gender for KSI crashes are shown in Figure 16.
B-14
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 15
Figure 15: Drivers of Unit 1 and Pedestrians/Bicyclists Involved in Crashes, by Age and Gender, Buckeye, 2019-2023
B-15
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 16
Figure 16: Drivers of Unit 1 and Pedestrians/Bicyclists Involved in KSI Crashes, by Age and Gender, Buckeye, 2019-2023
B-16
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 17
CRASH TRENDS BY CONTEXT
Summary
The 4,427 crashes within the City of Buckeye from 2019 to 2023 were classified based on the
geographic context in which they occurred. Analyzing crash trends within specific contexts can
uncover paƩerns that may be overlooked when data is averaged across the full study area. The
three geographic contexts are shown in Figure 1, and include ADOT faciliƟes, the developed areas
of Buckeye, and the undeveloped areas of the study area. The three areas are mutually exclusive
to each other. The number of crashes in each context is summarized in Table 1 and Figure 17
shows the percentage of total crashes, KSI crashes, and centerline miles by region.
Table 1: Crash StaƟsƟcs by Region, Buckeye, 2019-2023
Region
Crash Category
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Total
%
ADOT
Total Crashes
99
103
180
213
192
787
100%
KSI Crashes
2
6
8
14
10
40
5.1%
Fatal Crashes
1
2
2
4
4
11
1.4%
Pedestrian Crashes 0
0
0
0
1
1
0.1%
Bicyclist Crashes
0
1
0
1
0
2
0.2%
Motorcyclist Crashes 0
3
4
3
5
15
1.9%
Developed
Total Crashes
486
394
612
744
597
2,833
100%
KSI Crashes
21
11
22
15
12
81
2.9%
Fatal Crashes
2
3
6
4
2
17
0.6%
Pedestrian Crashes 3
9
9
6
7
34
1.2%
Bicyclist Crashes
6
1
5
6
2
20
0.7%
Motorcyclist Crashes 13
10
13
18
7
61
2.2%
Undeveloped
Total Crashes
127
123
173
192
192
807
100%
KSI Crashes
12
11
15
9
17
64
7.9%
Fatal Crashes
4
3
4
2
9
22
2.7%
Pedestrian Crashes 1
1
0
2
1
5
0.6%
Bicyclist Crashes
1
1
0
1
0
3
0.4%
Motorcyclist Crashes 5
9
5
8
5
32
4.0%
B-17
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 18
Figure 17: Percentage of Total Crashes (LeŌ), KSI Crashes (Middle), and Centerline Miles (Right) by Region, Buckeye, 2019-2023
The majority of crashes occurred in the developed area of Buckeye (2,833 crashes, 64% of total).
In the undeveloped area, KSI crashes were approximately 8 percent of all crashes as opposed to
approximately 3% in the developed area. Crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists were most
common in the developed area (54 crashes, 83% of vulnerable road user crashes), likely due to
higher prevalence of these road users in the developed area. Collisions involving motorcyclists
occurred at the highest rate in the undeveloped area, which account for 4% of all crashes within
the undeveloped area. The undeveloped area of Buckeye accounts for the most centerline miles
within the study area (44% of total), but only represents 18% of all crashes. The developed area
represents 41% of all centerline miles and accounts for a majority of the total crashes (64%).
ADOT
The ADOT right-of-way in Buckeye includes the SR-85 mainline and the traffic interchanges along
SR-85 and I-10, excluding the I-10 mainline. Between 2019 and 2023, 787 crashes occurred within
this area.
Top Crash Types (Total and KSI)
The most common crash type in the ADOT right-of-way was rear end collisions (32%, 251 crashes)
followed by angle crashes (26%, 206 crashes). 40 KSI crashes occurred in the ADOT right-of-way.
The most frequent KSI crash type was angle (53%, 21 crashes). Angle collisions were also the most
fatal crash type, comprising 7 of the 13 incidents. The crash type of collisions within the ADOT
right-of-way of Buckeye is displayed in Table 2.
B-18
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 19
Table 2: Crashes by Year and Crash Type, ADOT right-of-way, Buckeye, 2019-2023
Crash Type
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Total
%
Total Crashes
99
103
180
213
192
787
100%
Angle
20
27
38
70
51
206
26.2%
Left Turn
9
13
23
17
12
74
9.4%
Rear End
42
36
63
60
50
251
31.9%
Single Vehicle 16
13
26
24
43
122
15.5%
Pedestrian
0
0
0
0
1
1
0.1%
Bicyclist
0
1
0
1
0
2
0.2%
Other
12
13
30
41
35
131
16.7%
KSI Crashes
2
6
8
14
10
40
100%
Angle
1
2
2
11
5
21
52.5%
Left Turn
1
0
3
0
0
4
10%
Rear End
0
2
0
0
0
2
5%
Single Vehicle 0
1
1
1
2
5
12.5%
Pedestrian
0
0
0
0
1
1
2.5%
Bicyclist
0
1
0
0
0
1
2.5%
Other
0
0
2
2
2
6
15%
ContribuƟng Factors for Top KSI Crash Types
Angle crashes made up more than half of all KSI crashes in the ADOT right-of-way from 2019 to
2023 (21 crashes). All of these crashes occurred on SR-85 with none happening at the I-10 traffic
interchanges. All of these crashes occurred at at-grade traffic interchanges along SR-85 in
Buckeye. Each interchange consists of two at-grade intersecƟons: one on the eastern side and
one on the western side of the highway. SR-85 itself runs in a north-south direcƟon. The majority,
69% (13 crashes) of the angle KSI crashes happened at the eastern intersecƟon.
Neither speeding nor impairment were heavily involved in these crashes with two crashes
aƩributed to each of these factors. 6 of the 21 angle KSI crashes involved an unrestrained driver.
The most common violaƟon of angle KSI crashes was running a stop sign (10 crashes) followed by
failing to yield the right-of-way (6 crashes). Every angle KSI crash involved a violaƟng vehicle
traveling in either the eastbound or westbound direcƟon. Specifically, vehicles traveling east and
colliding with a northbound or southbound vehicle were most prevalent with 8 and 5 crashes,
respecƟvely. Most of the violaƟng vehicles were going straight ahead through the SR-85
intersecƟon (17 crashes).
B-19
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 20
The land surrounding the SR-85 interchanges within Buckeye is mostly flat with no sight-distance
obstrucƟons. Therefore, the high number of angle KSI crashes is likely due to vehicles disregarding
the minor street stop signs and failing to yield the right-of-way to the SR-85 mainline when
traveling through the interchanges.
Driver Behavior
Of the 787 crashes within the ADOT right-of-way, 251 (32%) involved speeding. 8 of those
speeding-related crashes resulted in a serious injury or fatality. From 2019 to 2023, impairment
was a factor in 59 crashes (7% of the total), with 8 of the impairment-related crashes resulƟng in
a serious injury or fatality. In the ADOT right-of-way, 28% of crashes involved a young driver (age
24 and younger), including 10 crashes that resulted in a fatality or serious injury. Unrestrained
drivers were involved in 28 crashes (4% of total) with 12 resulƟng in serious injury or fatality.
Driver behavior staƟsƟcs are displayed in Table 3.
Table 3: Driver Behavior StaƟsƟcs, ADOT right-of-way, Buckeye, 2019-2023
Region
Driver Behavior
KSI
KSI %
Total
Total %
ADOT
Speeding
8
20%
251
32%
Impairment
8
20%
59
7%
Young Driver
10
25%
220
28%
Unrestrained Driver 12
30%
28
4%
LocaƟons
The majority of crashes in the ADOT right-of-way occurred at intersecƟons along SR-85 and I-10.
A total of 561 crashes (71%) were reported within 150 feet of an ADOT intersecƟon. The
remaining 226 crashes (29% of total) did not occur within 150 feet of an intersecƟon and were
classified as non-intersecƟon crashes.
IntersecƟon signalizaƟon in Buckeye is evolving rapidly in response to ongoing development. To
determine whether crashes occurred at signalized or unsignalized intersecƟons, the signalizaƟon
status recorded in the crash report form was used.
Considering only intersecƟon crashes, 68% (383 crashes) were reported at unsignalized
intersecƟons while 32% (178 crashes) happened at signalized intersecƟons. The high number of
crashes at unsignalized intersecƟons is likely due to the fact that most of the traffic interchanges
and intersecƟons along the ADOT mainlines are unsignalized and controlled by STOP signs.
In the ADOT right-of-way, the greatest number of crashes were reported at Watson Road and EB
I-10 with 53 incidents. The intersecƟons with the next highest totals were Broadway Road/NB SR-
B-20
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 21
85 and Palo Verde Road/WB I-10 with 42 and 41 crashes, respecƟvely. Most intersecƟon crashes
occurred at I-10 intersecƟons (334 crashes, 60% of intersecƟon crashes) while 227 occurred at
SR-85 intersecƟons (40% of intersecƟon crashes). A list of the top 10 intersecƟons by crash
frequency within the ADOT right-of-way is displayed in Figure 18.
Figure 18: Crashes by IntersecƟon, ADOT right-of-way, Buckeye, 2019-2023
Most of the KSI crashes in the ADOT right-of-way of Buckeye occurred at unsignalized
intersecƟons (27 crashes, 68% of KSI crashes). 4 crashes (10% of KSI crashes) happened at
signalized intersecƟons while the remaining 9 crashes (22% of KSI crashes) were reported as non-
intersecƟon. 13 fatal crashes were reported in the ADOT right-of-way and most of them occurred
at unsignalized intersecƟons (9 crashes, 69% of fatal crashes). The intersecƟon of Broadway Road
and NB SR-85 had the most KSI crashes with 5 crashes, 3 of which resulted in fatality. 85% of KSI
crashes (34 crashes) occurred at SR-85 intersecƟons.
Developed Area
The developed area of Buckeye refers to porƟons of the study area that have been ‘built out’,
which typically includes curb, guƩer, sidewalks, driveways, higher density land uses, and other
supporƟng infrastructure. From 2019 to 2023, a total of 2,833 crashes occurred within the
developed area.
B-21
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 22
Top Crash Types (Total and KSI)
Rear-end crashes (795 crashes) were the most frequent crash type in the developed area,
followed by angle and ‘other’ with 581 crashes each. There were 54 collisions involving vulnerable
road users, of which 9 resulted in serious injuries and 7 were fatal.
For KSI crashes, single vehicle (19 crashes) was the top crash type followed by ‘other’ (14 crashes),
leŌ turn (13 crashes), angle (12 crashes), and pedestrian (11 crashes). Pedestrian crashes were
the most common among fatal crashes with 6 resulƟng in a fatality. The crash type of collisions
within the developed area of Buckeye is displayed in Table 4.
Table 4: Crashes by Year and Crash Type, Developed Area, Buckeye, 2019-2023
Crash Type
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Total
%
Total Crashes
486
394
612
744
597
2,833
100%
Angle
89
80
115
152
145
581
20.5%
Left Turn
64
52
104
110
85
415
14.6%
Rear End
148
110
173
203
161
795
28.1%
Single Vehicle 64
69
82
113
79
407
14.4%
Pedestrian
3
9
9
6
7
34
1.2%
Bicyclist
6
1
5
6
2
20
0.7%
Other
112
73
124
154
118
581
20.5%
KSI Crashes
21
11
22
15
12
81
100%
Angle
4
2
1
4
1
12
14.8%
Left Turn
3
1
2
3
4
13
16%
Rear End
3
1
3
0
0
7
8.6%
Single Vehicle 4
3
5
4
3
19
23.5%
Pedestrian
2
3
4
0
2
11
13.6%
Bicyclist
2
0
1
2
0
5
6.2%
Other
3
1
6
2
2
14
17.3%
ContribuƟng Factors for Top KSI Crash Types
Single-vehicle crashes were the most common crash type among KSI crashes in the developed
area, with a total of 19 incidents. Most of the single-vehicle crashes involved a collision with a
fixed object (15 crashes). Curbs were the most frequently struck fixed object, involved in 7
crashes, followed by unspecified ‘other fixed objects,’ which accounted for 5 crashes. Speeding
was a factor in over half of the 19 single-vehicle KSI crashes (10 crashes). Among those 10
speeding-related crashes, 5 also involved driver impairment, and 7 involved an unrestrained
B-22
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 23
driver. Overall, 8 of the 19 single-vehicle KSI crashes involved impairment, and 9 involved an
unrestrained driver.
There were 20 KSI motorcyclist crashes reported in the developed area of Buckeye from 2019 to
2023. In 12 of these crashes, the motorcyclist was determined to be at fault. Half of the crashes
where the motorcyclist was at fault involved speeding (6 crashes) and 3 involved failure to keep
in the proper lane. Overall, 35% of collisions with motorcyclists involved speeding and 25%
involved a motorcyclist not using the appropriate safety device.
16 KSI crashes involved a collision with a vulnerable road user (pedestrian or bicyclist). 7 of the
crashes resulted in fataliƟes — six involving pedestrians and one involving a bicyclist.
Unfortunately, the violaƟon and driver acƟon of these crashes are not specified or unknown.
Many of the details of vulnerable road user collisions are not known.
Driver Behavior
810 of the 2,833 crashes in the developed area involved speeding (29% of total). 27 of the crashes
that involved speeding resulted in a serious injury or fatality. Impairment was a factor in 225
crashes (8% of total), with 18 of the impairment-related crashes resulƟng in a serious injury or
fatality. 31% of crashes involved a young driver (age 24 and younger), in which 23 crashes were
KSI crashes. 82 (3% of total) crashes involved an unrestrained driver, where 16 resulted in serious
injury or fatality. Driver behavior staƟsƟcs are displayed in Table 5.
Table 5: Driver Behavior StaƟsƟcs, Developed Area, Buckeye, 2019-2023
Region
Driver Behavior
KSI
KSI %
Total
Total %
Developed
Speeding
27
33%
810
29%
Impairment
18
22%
225
8%
Young Driver
23
28%
891
31%
Unrestrained Driver 16
20%
82
3%
LocaƟons
2,170 crashes (77% of total) in the developed Buckeye area were reported within 150 feet of an
intersecƟon. 663 crashes (23% of total) happened outside of this 150-foot buffer and were
classified as non-intersecƟon crashes.
Crashes within the developed area of Buckeye primarily occurred at unsignalized intersecƟons
(1,627 crashes, 57% of total). 19% of developed area crashes happened at signalized intersecƟons
(543 crashes). Considering only intersecƟon crashes, 75% were reported at unsignalized
intersecƟons while the other 25% occurred at signalized intersecƟons.
B-23
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 24
Watson Road and Yuma Road was the intersecƟon with the greatest frequency of crashes in the
developed area of Buckeye with 125 crashes. Sundance Avenue/Watson Road and Verrado
Way/Yuma Road were the intersecƟons with the next greatest crash frequencies with 74 and 60
crashes, respecƟvely. A list of the top 10 intersecƟons by crash frequency within the developed
area of Buckeye is displayed in Figure 19.
Figure 19: Crashes by IntersecƟon, Developed Area, Buckeye, 2019-2023
KSI crashes at unsignalized intersecƟons in the developed area accounted for 47% (38 crashes) of
all KSI crashes in this context. 16 KSI crashes (20% of KSI crashes) were reported at signalized
intersecƟons, and 22 KSI crashes (27% of KSI crashes) were non-intersecƟon crashes. There were
17 fatal crashes that happened within the developed area of Buckeye, and most were reported
at unsignalized intersecƟons (10 crashes, 59% of fatal crashes). 2 fatal crashes occurred at
signalized intersecƟons (12% of fatal crashes) and 5 fatal crashes were non-intersecƟon (29% of
fatal crashes). Sundance Parkway and Yuma Road experienced the highest number of KSI crashes
with 3 crashes while six other intersecƟons recorded 2 KSI crashes.
There were 663 crashes within the developed area of Buckeye that were classified as non-
intersecƟon crashes. Watson Road and Yuma Road were the two roadway segments with the
greatest number of non-intersecƟon crashes with 104 and 102, respecƟvely. Miller Road was the
third highest-ranked roadway segment with 63 crashes, while nine other roadway segments
recorded at least 10 crashes. Miller Road also had the greatest number of KSI crashes with 4,
followed by Yuma Road with 3 crashes. A list of the top roadway segments by crash frequency
within the developed area of Buckeye is displayed in Figure 20.
B-24
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 25
Figure 20: Non-IntersecƟon Crashes by Roadway Segment, Developed Area, Buckeye, 2019-2023
Undeveloped Area
The undeveloped area refers to the undeveloped parts of the study area that consists primarily
of farmland, agriculture, low density residenƟal, or open land. This area typically includes sparse
development with fewer homes and businesses. Roads may be narrower and faciliƟes such as
sidewalks, bike lanes, streetlights, and supporƟng infrastructure are limited or absent. From 2019
to 2023, a total of 807 crashes occurred within the undeveloped area.
Top Crash Types (Total and KSI)
In the undeveloped area of Buckeye, the most common crash type was single vehicle (40%, 320
crashes). The next most frequent crash types were rear end (19%, 153 crashes) and angle (17%,
138 crashes). There were few collisions involving vulnerable road users (pedestrians and
bicyclists) with only 8 such crashes occurring. 6 of 8 vulnerable road user crashes resulted in either
serious injury or fatality.
Single vehicle (31%, 20 crashes), ‘other’ (27%, 17 crashes), and angle (19%, 12 crashes) were the
most common crash types for KSI crashes. ‘Other’ crashes accounted for half of all fatal crashes
(11 crashes) in the undeveloped area of Buckeye. The crash type of collisions within the
undeveloped area of Buckeye is displayed in Table 6.
Table 6: Crashes by Year and Crash Type, Undeveloped Area, Buckeye, 2019-2023
B-25
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 26
Crash Type
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Total
%
Total Crashes
127
123
173
192
192
807
100%
Angle
22
21
26
28
41
138
17.1%
Left Turn
14
6
14
17
23
74
9.2%
Rear End
24
21
37
39
32
153
19%
Single Vehicle 53
54
72
72
69
320
39.7%
Pedestrian
1
1
0
2
1
5
0.6%
Bicyclist
1
1
0
1
0
3
0.4%
Other
12
19
24
33
26
114
14.1%
KSI Crashes
12
11
15
9
17
64
100%
Angle
3
2
3
1
3
12
18.8%
Left Turn
1
2
1
0
1
5
7.8%
Rear End
1
0
1
1
1
4
6.3%
Single Vehicle 4
1
5
4
6
20
31.3%
Pedestrian
1
0
0
1
1
3
1.6%
Bicyclist
1
1
0
1
0
3
1.6%
Other
1
5
5
1
5
17
26.6%
ContribuƟng Factors for Top KSI Crash Types
Single-vehicle crashes were most common among KSI crashes in the undeveloped area of
Buckeye, accounƟng for nearly a third of all KSI crashes (20 crashes, 31% of total). 6 of the 20
crashes resulted in fatality, and nearly all of those fataliƟes (5 of 6) involved speeding. Half of the
single-vehicle KSI crashes involved a collision with a fixed object (10 crashes), and 9 involved
overturning or rollover. 35% of single-vehicle crashes involved impairment which included 5 of
the 6 fataliƟes. Young drivers were involved in 40% of single-vehicle KSI crashes and were present
for 3 of the fatal crashes. Unrestrained drivers were involved in 30% of the crashes as well. Most
single-vehicle KSI crashes occurred at the end of the week and on the weekend on Friday,
Saturday, and Sunday (13 crashes). 5 of the 6 fatal crashes occurred on these days.
‘Other’ collisions accounted for approximately 27% (17 crashes) of KSI crashes in the undeveloped
area of Buckeye. 11 of the 17 ‘other’ KSI crashes resulted in fatality. 5 of the crashes were the
result of head-on vehicle collisions. Due to the nature of these crashes, all 5 resulted in fatality.
Over half of the ‘other’ KSI crashes involved an unrestrained driver (9 crashes, 53% of total). 41%
of the crashes involved impairment and 35% involved speeding. 10 of the 17 ‘other’ KSI crashes
featured vehicles traveling in the eastbound or westbound direcƟons.
B-26
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 27
Driver Behavior
In the undeveloped area of Buckeye, 219 of the 807 crashes involved speeding (27% of total).
Speeding was involved in 22 KSI crashes. Impairment was involved in 83 crashes (10% of total),
with 18 of the impairment-related crashes resulƟng in serious injury or fatality. Young drivers (age
24 and younger) were featured in 236 crashes (29% of total) in the undeveloped area of Buckeye.
KSI crashes involving young drivers accounted for 17 crashes. Forty-six (6% of total) crashes
involved an unrestrained driver with 16 resulƟng serious injury or fatality. Driver behavior
staƟsƟcs are displayed in Table 7.
Table 7: Driver Behavior StaƟsƟcs, Undeveloped Area, Buckeye, 2019-2023
Region
Driver Behavior
KSI
KSI %
Total
Total %
Undeveloped
Speeding
22
34%
219
27%
Impairment
18
28%
83
10%
Young Driver
17
27%
236
29%
Unrestrained Driver
16
25%
46
6%
LocaƟons
Over half of the crashes (490 crashes, 61% of total) in the undeveloped area of Buckeye happened
within 150 feet of an intersecƟon. 317 crashes (39% of total) did not occur at an intersecƟon and
were classified as non-intersecƟon crashes.
Crashes in the undeveloped area of the City of Buckeye occurred primarily at unsignalized
intersecƟons (426 crashes, 53% of total). 64 crashes (8% of total) were reported at signalized
intersecƟons within the undeveloped Buckeye area. Considering only intersecƟon crashes,
unsignalized intersecƟons accounted for 87% of crashes while signalized intersecƟons accounted
for the remaining 13%.
The highest number of crashes happened at the intersecƟon of Jackrabbit Trail and Yuma Road
(34 crashes) within the undeveloped area of Buckeye. MC 85 and Jackrabbit Trail also experienced
32 crashes. Beloat Road and Jackrabbit Trail experienced the third highest crash frequency with
27 crashes. A list of the top 10 intersecƟons by crash frequency within the undeveloped area of
Buckeye is displayed in Figure 21.
B-27
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 28
Figure 21: Crashes by IntersecƟon, Undeveloped Area, Buckeye, 2019-2023
Most of the KSI crashes within the undeveloped area were non-intersecƟon crashes (38 crashes,
59% of KSI crashes). 23 KSI crashes (36% of KSI crashes) occurred at unsignalized intersecƟons
and 3 (5% of KSI crashes) were reported at signalized intersecƟons. 22 fatal crashes occurred in
the undeveloped area of Buckeye, and most of them were non-intersecƟon crashes (19 crashes,
86% of fatal crashes). The remaining 3 fatal crashes happened at unsignalized intersecƟons (14%
of fatal crashes). The following intersecƟons recorded 2 KSI crashes each: Perryville Road/Yuma
Road, MC 85/Jackrabbit Trail, MC 85/Verrado Way. 18 other intersecƟons each experienced one
KSI crash.
The undeveloped area of Buckeye experienced 317 non-intersecƟon crashes during the five-year
period. Old US Highway 80 was the roadway segment with the highest number of non-
intersecƟon crashes with 42. The next highest were Baseline Road, MC-85, and Jackrabbit Trail
with 33, 32, and 29 crashes, respecƟvely. Old US Highway 80 also had the most KSI crashes of any
roadway segment with 12 KSI crashes. The top roadway segments by crash frequency in the
undeveloped area of Buckeye are displayed in Figure 22.
B-28
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 29
Figure 22: Non-IntersecƟon Crashes by Roadway Segment, Undeveloped Area, Buckeye, 2019-2023
CONTEXTUAL COMPARISON
The developed area of Buckeye featured the greatest number of crashes from 2019 to 2023 with
2,833 crashes. The undeveloped area of the city was next highest with 807 crashes, while the
ADOT right-of-way within Buckeye included 787 crashes.
The developed area of Buckeye accounted for more than two-thirds (68%) of all crashes that
resulted in no injury within the City of Buckeye from 2019 to 2023. As severity increases, the share
of crashes in the developed area decreases. For fatal crashes, the undeveloped area of Buckeye
accounts for over 42% of all fatal crashes within the City from 2019 to 2023. The ADOT right-of-
way accounted for 25% of all fatal crashes while the developed area featured nearly 33%. The
share of crashes by injury severity and geographic region can be seen in Figure 23.
B-29
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 30
Figure 23: Share of Crashes by Injury Severity and Context, Buckeye, 2019-2023
Figure 24 demonstrates the contextual trends for each crash type. As the developed area
accounts for 64% of all crashes in the study area, any crash type in the developed area with
greater than 64% is considered overrepresented – meaning it happens more frequently there
than would be expected based on overall crash distribuƟon. This includes rear end crashes,
‘other’ crashes, leŌ turn crashes and pedestrian and bicycle crashes. Similarly, single vehicle
crashes are overrepresented in the undeveloped area. 38% of single vehicle crashes occurred in
the undeveloped area, over twice the rate of all crashes that occurred in this context. Angle
crashes and rear end crashes are overrepresented on ADOT faciliƟes, with 22% and 21% of these
crash types respecƟvely occurring in this context, up from 17% of all crashes.
B-30
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 31
Figure 24: Share of Crashes by Crash Type and Context, Buckeye, 2019-2023
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL ROAD SAFETY CONTEXT
Statewide data was obtained from the ADOT crash database. NaƟonal crash data was obtained
from the NaƟonal Highway Traffic Safety AdministraƟon's annual crash reports which contain
crash data from 1988 to 20231. The total amount of crashes for each analysis year was compared
between Buckeye, Arizona statewide, and naƟonal data. The growth rate between successive
years was calculated as shown in Figure 25.
The growth rate between all sets of data generally follow similar trends. The growth rate
increased in 2019 and then decreased unƟl a local minimum was reached in 2020 during the
COVID-19 pandemic. AŌerward, there was a large increase, especially pronounced in Buckeye,
before decreasing in the most recent years.
1 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration – Traffic Safety Facts Annual Report Tables
B-31
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 32
Figure 25: Growth Rate of Buckeye, Statewide, and NaƟonal Crashes, 2019-2023
The severity of crashes for all three sets of data is displayed in Figure 26. The city and state data
classifies injury severity into five categories, while the naƟonal data separates it into three
categories: no injury, injury, and fatal. The percent of crashes resulƟng in a fatality is higher for
Buckeye with a value of 1.2% compared to the state and naƟon at 0.9% and 0.6%, respecƟvely.
This means that 1.2% of all crashes that occurred in Buckeye resulted in a fatality. The percent of
crashes resulƟng in a fatality or serious injury in Buckeye is higher than the statewide percent at
a value of 4.2% compared to 3.4%. The naƟonal percentage of crashes resulƟng in an injury is
28.5% while the percentage in Buckeye is a combined 30.7%.
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Arizona Crashes - % Growth
Buckeye Crashes - % Growth
National Crashes - % Growth
B-32
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 33
Figure 26: Crash Severity Comparison of Buckeye, State of Arizona, and NaƟonal Crashes, 2019-2023
The percent of crashes resulƟng in a fatality of Buckeye, statewide, and naƟonal crashes are
shown in Figure 27. Buckeye consistently had a higher percentage than statewide and naƟonal
data.
Figure 27: Percent of crashes ResulƟng in a Fatality in Buckeye, State of Arizona, and NaƟonal Crashes by Year, 2019-2023
From 2021 to 2022, the number of fataliƟes in Arizona increased from 1,063 to 1,200, a percent
change of 12.9%. FataliƟes in Buckeye decreased from 12 to 10 from 2021 to 2022; however, the
year-to-year fluctuaƟon in this data does not indicate a clear trend. NaƟonal staƟsƟcs on 2022
fataliƟes and percent change trends from 2021 are shown in Figure 28.
0.98%
1.29%
1.24%
0.87%
1.53%
0.69%
0.98%
0.88%
1.00%
0.98%
0.50%
0.68%
0.65%
0.66%
0.61%
0.00%
0.20%
0.40%
0.60%
0.80%
1.00%
1.20%
1.40%
1.60%
1.80%
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Fatality Rate
Buckeye
Arizona
National
B-33
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 34
*Figure Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts 2022 – State Traffic Data
Figure 28: FataliƟes and Percent Changes, by State (Person-Level), 2021-2022
The rate of pedestrian crashes in Buckeye is lower when compared to statewide and naƟonal
data. Except for one year, 2020, pedestrian crashes are less frequent in Buckeye. Pedestrian
crashes made up less than 1% of total crashes in Buckeye for every year except 2020 when the
COVID-19 pandemic occurred. The rate of pedestrian crashes for all three data sets is displayed
in Figure 29.
B-34
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 35
Figure 29: Pedestrian Crash Rate of City of Buckeye, State of Arizona, and NaƟonal Crashes by Year, 2014-2023
For most analysis years, bicyclist crashes occur at a lower frequency in Buckeye in comparison to
statewide and naƟonwide data. 2019 stands as the excepƟon ranking higher than statewide and
naƟonal rates. 2019 is the only year where bicyclist crashes represented more than 1% of total
crashes in Buckeye. Figure 30 shows the frequency of bicyclist crashes for all three data sets.
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.6%
0.8%
1.0%
1.2%
1.4%
1.6%
1.8%
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Arizona Crashes
Buckeye Crashes
National Crashes
B-35
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 36
Figure 30: Bicyclist Crash Rate of City of Buckeye, State of Arizona, and NaƟonal Crashes by Year, 2014-2023
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.6%
0.8%
1.0%
1.2%
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Arizona Crashes
Buckeye Crashes
National Crashes
B-36
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 37
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Crash queries were obtained from the ADOT crash database. This report used exisƟng tools to
conduct a safety analysis of 5 years from 2019 to 2023, considered different geographic contexts
within the study area and compared trends to statewide and naƟonal data. The following key
findings are based on a review of crash data from 2019 to 2023:
An annual average of 885 crashes per year were reported during the 5-year study period.
This equates to more than two crashes per day.
30% of severe crashes and 40% of fatal crashes involve speeding.
Impairment becomes more prevalent the greater the injury severity, with 37% of all fatal
crashes involving impairment.
The majority of drivers (Unit 1) involved in severe crashes were male (68%).
In Buckeye, drivers aged 15–19 are involved in 18% of all crashes—the highest proporƟon
of any age group.
Pedestrians and bicyclists aged 10 to 14 represented the largest group of vulnerable road
users involved in these crashes, with nearly 25% of all pedestrian and bicyclist crashes
involving someone aged 14 or younger.
In the last 5 years there were 65 bicyclist or pedestrian crashes, including 12 fatal crashes
and 12 serious injury crashes.
o While these crashes reflect only 1.5% of all crashes in Buckeye. they reflect 13% of
all KSI crashes.
o When involved in a crash, there is a 70% chance that a pedestrian or a bicyclist will
be killed.
The majority of crashes occurred in the developed area of Buckeye (2,833 crashes, 64% of
total), followed by the undeveloped area (807 crashes, 18% of total) and the ADOT right-
of-way (787 crashes, 18% of total).
KSI crashes were most frequent in the developed area of Buckeye (81 crashes, 44% of
total), followed by the undeveloped area (64 crashes, 35% of total) and the ADOT right-
of-way (40 crashes, 22% of total).
ADOT right-of-way Crashes
o Angle crashes make up the majority of KSI crashes (21 crashes, 52.5% of total). All
of these crashes are located on SR-85 with drivers either failing to yield or running
a stop sign in the eastbound/westbound direcƟon.
B-37
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 38
Developed Area Crashes
o Non-intersecƟon (>150 feet from intersecƟon) crashes account for 32% of all KSI
crashes, and 41% of fatal crashes.
o KSI crashes at unsignalized intersecƟons in the developed area accounted for 53%
(43 crashes) of all KSI crashes.
o Approximately 1 in 4 severe crashes involved a single vehicle (19 crashes, 23% of
total). Most of the single-vehicle crashes involved a collision with a fixed object (15
crashes).
Driver behavior was heavily involved in single-vehicle crashes within the
developed area of Buckeye:
Speeding was a factor in 53%
Impairment was a factor in 42%
Unrestrained drivers were involved in 47%
Undeveloped Area Crashes
o Single-vehicle crashes were the most common among KSI crashes, accounƟng for
nearly a third of all KSI crashes in the area (20 crashes, 31% of total).
o Nearly half of the single-vehicle KSI crashes involved an overturning or rollover
collision (9 crashes, 45% of total), while 40% (8 crashes) involved a collision with a
fixed object.
Driver behavior was heavily involved in single-vehicle KSI crashes within the
undeveloped area of Buckeye:
Speeding was a factor in 40%
Impairment was a factor in 35%
Young drivers were involved in 40%
6 of the 20 single-vehicle KSI crashes within the undeveloped area of
Buckeye resulted in fatality:
5 of 6 involved speeding
5 of 6 involved impairment
4 of 6 involved an unrestrained driver
o Non-intersecƟon crashes accounted for almost 60% of all severe crashes and 86%
of all fatal crashes.
When comparing regions, it was found that as severity increases, the share of crashes in
the developed area of Buckeye decreases.
B-38
City of Buckeye TransportaƟon Safety Plan – Crash Analysis Summary
Page | 39
Each region has the following overrepresented crash types:
o Developed (64% of all crashes): Rear end (66%), Other (70%), LeŌ Turn (74%),
Pedestrian (85%), Bicyclist (80%)
o Undeveloped (18% of all crashes): Single Vehicle (38%)
o ADOT (18% of all crashes): Rear End (21%), Angle (22%)
Each region has the following overrepresented KSI crash types:
o Developed (44% of all KSI crashes): Rear end (50%), Bicyclist & Pedestrian (67%)
o Undeveloped (35% of all KSI crashes): Single Vehicle (45%), Sideswipe (64%)
o ADOT (22% of all KSI crashes): Angle & LeŌ Turn (40%)
B-39
Page 42
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX C:
PREDICTIVE RISK
ASSESSMENT
High Risk Network Methodology and Results
Page | 1
MEMORANDUM
Date
December 17, 2025.
To
City of Buckeye
Craig Sharp
Anissa Gerard, PhD, PE
From
Y2K Engineering
Denise Baker, PhD, PE, RSP1
Rae Stephani, PE, PTOE, RSP1
Subject
City of Buckeye – Transportation Safety Plan –
High Risk Network Methodology and Results
OVERVIEW
A High Risk Network (HRN) refers to a group of roadway locaƟons that are anƟcipated to have a higher
propensity for motor vehicle crashes compared to the broader network. Unlike methods that focus
primarily on locaƟons with a history of frequent crashes, an HRN offers a proacƟve approach by
idenƟfying areas with increased risk, even if they have not yet experienced a high number of
incidents. This allows for the implementaƟon of safety countermeasures before severe crash paƩerns
emerge.
To idenƟfy locaƟons with a high potenƟal for severe crashes in the City of Buckeye, a structured
methodology was used to develop the HRN. The first step was to idenƟfy potenƟal risk factors that
are associated with severe crashes and are relevant to the City of Buckeye. Relevant GIS data was
gathered through publicly available sources, coordinaƟon with the city and supplemental reviews.
The data was evaluated to determine which factors showed the strongest relaƟonship with crash
severity. The risk factors were weighed based on the exisƟng literature about the relaƟonship
between factors and severity as well as insights gathered from Buckeye-specific data. From the
weighted risk factors, a composite risk score was calculated and applied to all segments in the
evaluated Buckeye network. Segments with risk scores above defined thresholds (90th and 95th
percenƟles) were included in the HRN.
The HRN development process is shown in Figure 1.
C-1
High Risk Network Methodology and Results
Page | 2
Figure 1: HRN Development Process
DEFINITIONS
Throughout this memorandum, a few specific terms will be used. They are defined below.
High-Risk Network (HRN) - a network idenƟfying areas where condiƟons may indicate the risk of a
serious injury or fatal crash occurring.
KABCO scale - system used by law enforcement and transportaƟon professionals to describe the
severity of injuries resulƟng from traffic crashes. It helps agencies track and analyze crash outcomes
in a consistent way. It classifies crash injury severity as K for fatal injury, A for suspected serious injury,
B for suspected minor injury, C for possible injury, and O for no apparent injury or property damage
only crash.
KSI - Killed and Serious Injury Crashes – Killed (K) and Serious Injury (SI) crashes were crashes that
resulted in one or more fataliƟes or serious injuries. Serious injuries are defined as broken
extremiƟes, severe laceraƟons, paralysis and other injuries. Fatal crashes are defined when one or
more people die within 30 days of the crash because of injuries sustained in the collision. These
collisions correspond to “K – Fatal Injury” and “A – Suspected Serious Injury” in the KABCO scale.
KABC Crashes – All injury crashes. It excludes property damage crashes.
LOSS – Level of Service of Safety – compares the esƟmated predicted number of crashes in similar
faciliƟes with observed crash frequency to idenƟfy locaƟons with high potenƟal for safety
improvements.
Crowdsourced Speed Data (INRIX) - INRIX collects data from millions of connected vehicles, mobile
devices and GPS-enabled apps to provide real-Ɵme and historical traffic speed informaƟon. This data
helps transportaƟon agencies analyze congesƟon paƩerns, monitor travel Ɵmes and assess roadway
performance without the need for tradiƟonal roadside sensors. INRIX is a third-party company that
provides services to agencies.
C-2
High Risk Network Methodology and Results
Page | 3
BEST PRACTICES
No one definiƟve methodology has been used consistently to develop HRNs. The HRNs documented
in the literature have been highly customized to each jurisdicƟon to meet their own needs and
address their specific crash problem and trends. However, using Risk to Drive AcƟon is recognized by
FHWA as supporƟng the principle of safety is proacƟve1.
Examples of documented High-Risk Networks in the United States are:
City of Boulder, CO2: The HRN was measured by crashes per vehicle miles traveled and has
roughly five Ɵmes more risk than all Boulder arterial streets. 67% of serious injury and fatal
traffic crashes occur on arterial streets (only about 17% of streets). Seven crash types account
for 62% of fatal and serious injury crashes: running red lights, leŌ turn crashes, right turn slip
lanes, right turn on red crashes, right turn crashes, mulƟ-use path crossings and pedestrian
crashes while crossing the street.
Henry County, GA3: The Henry County HRN is comprised of seven road typologies idenƟfied
as having higher crash densiƟes per mile through decision tree machine learning algorithms.
The road typologies are characterized based on facility type (highway versus non-highway),
census data, land use, number of lanes and speeds. They are:
o
State highways adjacent to non-residenƟal land uses and a low percentage elderly
populaƟon
o
State highways adjacent to Census tracts where a high percentage of elderly persons
and high vehicle ownership are present
o
State highways adjacent to Census tracts where high poverty rates are present
o
State highways adjacent to Census tracts where sidewalks and low poverty rates are
present
o
Non-state highways adjacent to commercial land uses, where the posted speed limit
is 35 MPH or higher, and where the elderly populaƟon is low
o
MulƟ-lane, high-speed roads adjacent to commercial land use
o
Two-lane, high-speed roads adjacent to commercial land use
1 Federal Highway Administration. (n.d.). A systemic approach to safety using risk to drive action. U.S.
Department of Transportation. https://highways.dot.gov/safety/data-analysis-tools/systemic/systemic-
approach-safety-using-risk-drive-action
2 City of Boulder. (2022, Spring). A systemic approach to crash reduction: Getting to zero on the core arterial
network [Conference poster]. National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Annual
Conference, Denver, CO. https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/NACTO_Denver2023_Poster_Boulder.pdf
3 Henry County. (2025, February 24). High risk network report: Henry County Transportation Safety Action
Plan. Henry County. https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/ce8ad616-03e9-4743-a4fa-fcadf16e5393
C-3
High Risk Network Methodology and Results
Page | 4
City of Mesa, AZ4: this High Risk Network was evaluated using collision factors (applied to the
collision) and roadway and built environment factors (applied to the segment). Risk factors
included both crash characterisƟcs that could increase the severity outcome, as well as
locaƟon aƩribuƟons. Crash characterisƟcs considered were involvement of a vulnerable mode
(pedestrian, bicyclist, or motorcyclist), involvement of a vulnerable age (<18 or >64), and a
contextual factor that corresponded to JusƟce40 Census Tracts that were idenƟfied as
disadvantaged. Roadway and Built Environment aƩributes considered were intersecƟon type,
ADT, speed limit, median type, commercial zoning and proximity to a school.
The Federal Highway AdministraƟon (FHWA) advocates for a systemic approach to traffic safety that
uses risk-based strategies to prevent severe crashes. The systemic approach idenƟfies roadway
features that are associated with increased crash risks across the enƟre network. This is different
from tradiƟonal methods that primarily focus on locaƟons with high crash frequency. This method is
parƟcularly effecƟve for idenƟfying dispersed crash types such as those involving vulnerable road
users on rural or local roads, which might be missed using tradiƟonal methods.
The systemic approach involves analyzing crash data to idenƟfy common risk factors, screening and
prioriƟzing locaƟons exhibiƟng these factors, selecƟng appropriate countermeasures, and prioriƟzing
projects for implementaƟon. This process helps change the focus from reacƟng to crashes to
prevenƟng them by idenƟfying and addressing risk factors before severe crashes occur.
Factors that influence crash severity can be idenƟfied through the lens of the Safe System Approach5
as Safer People, Safer Speeds, and Safer Roads. While Post-Crash Care and Safer Vehicles are part of
the Safe System Approach, they were not included in the High Risk Network evaluaƟon, as they are
not part of the network itself.
4 City of Mesa. (2025). Mesa safer streets. City of Mesa, AZ. https://www.mesaaz.gov/Resident-
Resources/Streets-Transportation/Mesa-Safer-Streets; National Association of City Transportation
Officials. (2025, June 27). Meet the cities: Mesa, AZ Comprehensive Safety Action Plan. NACTO.
https://nacto.org/latest/meet-the-cities-mesa-az-comprehensive-safety-action-plan/
5 U.S. Department of Transportation. (2025, January 14). What is a Safe System Approach?
https://www.transportation.gov/safe-system-approach
C-4
High Risk Network Methodology and Results
Page | 5
Safer Speeds
The Safe System Approach emphasizes that humans have low tolerance for crash forces, so
controlling speed is vital to ensuring survivability. The fatality risk of a pedestrian being hit by a
traveling vehicle at 50 km/h (31 mph) is more than twice as high as the risk at 40 km/h (25 mph) and
more than five Ɵmes higher than the risk at 30 km/h (17 mph)6.
Safer People
USDOT defines this factor as “Encourage safe, responsible driving and behavior by people who use
our roads and create condiƟons that prioriƟze their ability to reach their desƟnaƟon unharmed”7.
This aspect of the Safe System Approach idenƟfies the following as risk factors: Impairment, lack of
appropriate restraint, speeding (explored more in depth under Safer Speeds) and Vulnerable Road
Users idenƟfied as being at higher risk of injury on the roads are pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists,
and children.
Safer Roads
FHWA’s Safe System guidance highlights that roads should be forgiving of human error and designed
to limit crash energy to tolerable levels. Features like wide lanes, shoulder width, and clear zones
affect speed behavior and survivability. Narrower urban lanes can act as traffic calming devices,
encouraging lower speeds and fewer crashes. Key geometry features include:
Number of lanes & median presence – Divided roads with medians significantly reduce head-
on collisions; undivided two-lane roads have higher fatality rates.
Road curvature – Sharp curves or sudden radius changes elevate the risk of loss-of-control
crashes. FHWA's systemic speed management highlights curve radius as a notable risk factor
and recommends proacƟve geometric reviews.
Based on the guideline of the Safe Systems Approach, the following factors were considered in the
measure of risk for the development of Buckeye’s High Risk Network: Driver Behavior (Safer Speeds
and Safer People), Road Geometry and Conflict (Safer Roads), Vulnerable Road User (Safer People),
Crash History, and Downtown Context (Safer Roads and Safer People).
6 Rosén, E., & Sander, U. (2009). Pedestrian fatality risk as a function of car impact speed. Accident Analysis
& Prevention, 41(3), 536–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2009.02.002
7 U.S. Department of Transportation. (2025, January 14). Safer people. National Roadway Safety Strategy.
https://www.transportation.gov/safe-system-approach/safer-people
C-5
High Risk Network Methodology and Results
Page | 6
NETWORK EVALUATED
The boundaries of the
evaluated network and
roadway ownership can
be seen in Figure 2. A
close
view
of
the
developed
area
of
Buckeye is displayed in
Figure 3.
A total of 344 miles of
paved highways, arterials,
and
collector
roads
divided into 649 segments
were evaluated, with an
average
length
of
approximately half mile.
For the purposes of this
analysis, both City and
County roads are included
without distinction. The
evaluated network also
includes SR-85, an Arizona
Department
of
Transportation
(ADOT)
facility, but does not
include the I-10 mainline.
The evaluated network
includes 39% of Buckeye’s
paved roads (890 miles,
excluding mainline I-10) –
the evaluated network
excludes
local
paved
roads and unpaved roads
of all classifications – and
accounts for 95% of KSI
crashes within the City.
Figure 2: Evaluated Network and Road Ownership
(Road ownership data per City of Buckeye open data, March 2025)
C-6
High Risk Network Methodology and Results
Page | 7
Figure 3: Evaluated Network – Developed Area of Buckeye
RISK FACTORS
Risk factors on the network idenƟfied in the literature and for which geospaƟal data was available
were evaluated for their relaƟonship with KSI crashes in Buckeye. The factors evaluated were:
Driver Behavior: while driver behavior cannot be measured, surrogate measures of two
important aspects were considered:
o
Speed: where available, crowdsourced (INRIX) speed data was used. INRIX data was
evaluated from 04/03/2024 to 04/03/2025 (Tuesday to Thursday and Saturday), and
it was available only at major arterials. Where crowdsourced speed data was not
available, posted speed limit was used with a heavier weight.
o
CongesƟon: where available through crowdsourced data (INRIX), travel Ɵme was used
as a proxy for congesƟon. Travel Ɵme was included in the methodology as the standard
deviaƟon of the measured travel Ɵmes on the segment throughout the data collecƟon
C-7
High Risk Network Methodology and Results
Page | 8
period. If congesƟon is an issue at the segment, travel Ɵmes will vary more when
compared to segments that do not experience congesƟon and travel Ɵmes stay the
same throughout the day.
o
Impairment: proximity to alcohol establishments was used as a proxy measure.
Vulnerable Road Users: measured through surrogate measures such as proximity to key
acƟvity generaƟon sites (schools, parks, community centers), transit route, and census data
through block groups with higher share of households with no vehicles available.
Road Geometry: measured through number of lanes, median type and presence, and density
of minor street intersecƟons. LighƟng presence and pavement width were considered but not
included in the final methodology due to incompleteness of data.
Land Use: Zoning areas were evaluated but not included in the methodology beyond
idenƟfying the Downtown zone overlay as a risk factor. It was discussed with City of Buckeye
that zoning is constantly changing and may not accurately represent the characterisƟcs of
where crashes occurred or where the potenƟal risk factors are idenƟfied.
Table 1 shows the inventory of the data evaluated along with data sources and descripƟons of each
dataset.
Table 1: Risk Factors Used in EvaluaƟon Methodology
Factor
Data source
Description
Crash history
ADOT
Crash data was gathered for the Buckeye planning area plus
300 feet for the years of 2019 to 2023. The 300 feet beyond the
planning area was included to capture intersections for which
the City owns only one of the legs. Those locations would not
have been captured correctly without the 300 buffer. For this
analysis, this step affects Perryville Road. Intersections and
segments identified in this area are flagged when shown in the
results since those intersections are not owned by Buckeye.
This dataset includes SR-
85 and ramps to I-10, but excludes crashes at the I-10 mainline.
This dataset includes crashes at county islands. Crashes at
intersections where the City of Buckeye owns only one leg were
included for the entire intersection. The locations at the
boundary of the City Planning Area are flagged in the report.
Downtown
Area
Buckeye Open Data,
Zoning Overlay, accessed
April 2025
This shapefile represents the boundary of Buckeye Downtown
area.
Posted speed
Derived from the Signs
layer provided by City of
Buckeye
Determined by the posted speed, using a selection of R2-1 signs
from the Signs feature class.
C-8
High Risk Network Methodology and Results
Page | 9
Factor
Data source
Description
Average Speed
INRIX from 04/03/2024 to
04/03/2025 (Tuesday to
Thursday and Saturday)
Data was provided in one-hour intervals and average speed was
available for each segment. Data was available only at major
arterials and not available for minor streets.
Travel Time/
Congestion
INRIX from 04/03/2024 to
04/03/2025 (Tuesday to
Thursday and Saturday)
Data was provided as travel time in one-hour intervals, for each
segment. The standard deviation for travel time in each
segment was calculated. High standard deviations mean the
travel time varies more than the rest of the sample. In other
words, travel time is not constant. In segments where no
congestion is present, the travel time remains the same
regardless of time of day.
Proximity to
Alcohol
Establishments
Arizona Department of
Liquor Licenses and
Control, Accessed
February 2025
Number of alcohol establishments within a 1/4 mile from the
segment.
Road
Configuration
Y2K virtual review
Y2K staff reviewed the segments evaluated as part of the HRN
evaluation for number of lanes and type of median present at
the segment.
Curvature
City centerlines plus Y2K
calculation
Curvature ratio was obtained by dividing segment length by the
distance between the endpoints. Straight segments have the
ratio of one.
Density of
intersections/
Conflict
Spatially generated from
Intersections layer
Number of minor intersections (local/collector and
local/arterial) in the segment.
Proximity to a
park
Buckeye Open Data,
Accessed February 2025
Number of parks within a 1/4 mile from the segment.
Proximity to a
school
Buckeye Open Data,
Accessed February 2025
Number of schools within a 1/4 mile from the segment.
Proximity to a
community
center
Buckeye Open Data,
Accessed February 2025
Number of community centers within a 1/4 mile from the
segment.
Proximity to
transit route
Selected Bus Routes,
Valley Metro Open Geo
Route 685 Ajo/Gila Bend runs through Miller Road and
Downtown Buckeye.
Car free
households
2010 Census/ American
Community Survey (ACS),
Block Group attribute
Variable Pct_AO0: Percent of households with zero
automobiles, 2010 (American Community Survey, 2010)
Segments within a quarter mile of a block group with
PCT_AO0>0.04 was be flagged for being close to a low car
ownership area.
C-9
High Risk Network Methodology and Results
Page | 10
Crash Data by Risk Factor
Comparing the locaƟon of KSI crashes from 2019 to 2023 to the locaƟon of the aforemenƟoned risk
factors supported the validaƟon of the methodology. Crash types that occurred more frequently than
expected based on the length distribuƟons were idenƟfied and highlighted as over-represented. For
example, segments with transit present represent 4% of the centerlines of the network evaluated,
but 14% of all KSI crashes were observed on these segments. Thus we say that segments with transit
present have an over-representaƟon of KSI crashes.
KSI crashes were also found to be over-represented in Downtown Buckeye. Near acƟvity generators
such as schools, parks, transit, and alcohol establishments, KSI crashes that involved vulnerable road
users (pedestrians and bicyclists) were over-represented. Several factors were idenƟfied that did not
correspond to an over-representaƟon of KSI crashes, including road curvature, commercial and
industrial zoning, and intersecƟon density. KSI Crashes were also over-represented on segments
where the posted speed limit is 40 or 45 MPH.
AƩachment A shows the comparisons of the length distribuƟon of risk factors versus KSI distribuƟon
on those segments.
DEFINING RISK – A WEIGHTED METHODOLOGY
Figure 4: Risk Factors by Weight into Risk Measurement
Risk was measured through a risk score,
calculated as a weighted score based on the
identified risk factors. Five factors were
used to define and measure risk, namely
Crash History, Downtown Context, Driver
Behavior, Road Geometry, and Vulnerable
Road Users (VRU).
Distribution between the factors was made
based on the existing knowledge of
conditions that increase the likelihood of a
crash resulting in a higher injury severity.
Buckeye-specific
data
informed
the
decision of how to determine the factor
weights, but it was not the only metric,
since the HRN evaluation is a proactive
approach that does not rely on past crash
history alone.
C-10
High Risk Network Methodology and Results
Page | 11
The distribuƟon used to calculate the weighted risk score is shown in Figure 4. The following sub-
secƟons describe the raƟonale associated with each risk factor used in the definiƟon of the risk score.
A detailed list of the assigned points is shown in Table 2.
Crash History
Five years of KSI crash data was used to idenƟfy locaƟons with history of high crash frequency. 185
KSI crashes were registered in Buckeye in the 2019-2023 period, 176 (95%) of them occurred in the
evaluated network for the HRN. For the purposes of this analysis, crashes at intersecƟons were
considered at each segment. Figure 5 shows how the crashes were assigned to each segment and
how they were assigned at the connecƟon between adjacent segments.
Three points were assigned per KSI crash in the 5-year period (2019-2023), up to 15 points. The
segment with the highest number of KSI crashes had 5 crashes in the period (Broadway Road near
SR-85).
The High Risk Network is meant to be a proacƟve approach independent from the past crash history.
The idea is to idenƟfy where crashes can happen before they do. For that reason, a lower share of
points was assigned to this factor.
Figure 5: Crash Assignment Methodology
Downtown Context
Segments in Downtown Buckeye represent 3% of the evaluated network. KSI crashes on those
segments represent 6% of the KSI crashes in the 5-year period. Since crashes in Downtown Buckeye
are over-represented in relaƟon to the share of the network, this factor was accounted for in the
methodology. Segments in the Downtown Buckeye Area were assigned 5 points to account for the
context – on-street parking, non-motorized traffic, greater density of access points.
C-11
High Risk Network Methodology and Results
Page | 12
Road Geometry/ Conflict
Figure 6: Risk Factors – Road Geometry and Conflict
Points
The lane configuration of a road can guide driver behavior
and potentially address safety concerns. The density of
intersections on a segment increases the number of
conflict points that can lead to a crash.
Road Geometry was assigned one of the largest shares of
the risk assessment points – 30 points. Lane configuraƟon
accounted for up to 17 points, presence of curvature in the
road could add 3 extra points and density of intersecƟons
could add up to 10 points.
Figure 6 shows how the Road Geometry points were
assigned and how they relate to the remainder of the risk
score.
Driver Behavior
Figure 7: Risk Factors – Driver Behavior
Driver Behavior is associated with large shares of KSI crashes, for
example, 25% of Buckeye traffic fatal and serious injury crashes
involved a drunk driver. The driver behavior factor accounts for
30% of the possible points in the risk score methodology.
High speeds are associated with higher injury levels due to kinetic
energy transfers. Where crowdsourced speed data (INRIX) was
available it was included in the methodology with heavier
weights than the posted speed limit. On minor roads, only the
posted speed is considered since crowdsourced data was not
available. Congestion was measured through a surrogate
measure, based on travel time variability where INRIX data was
available.
C-12
High Risk Network Methodology and Results
Page | 13
Vulnerable Road User (VRU)
Figure 8: Risk Factors – Vulnerable Road Users
The risk score points represenƟng the Vulnerable Road User
factor uses proximity to parks, schools, and community
centers, as well as transit presence and proximity to census
tracts with larger shares of households without any vehicle
available. Twenty-two (22) KSI crashes involving bicycles
and pedestrians were reported in the 5-year period (2019-
2023) within the evaluated network for the HRN analysis.
Overall, while pedestrian and bicycle crashes reflect only
1.5% of all crashes in Buckeye, they reflect 13% of all KSI
crashes and, when involved in a crash, there is a 70% chance
that the pedestrian or a bicyclist will be injured or killed.
With development, it is expected that pedestrian and
bicycle traffic will increase and crashes involving vulnerable
road users are known to be more severe, thus more points
were assigned to this risk factor.
Regarding transit presence, segments with transit present represent 4% of the centerlines of the
network evaluated, but 14% of all KSI crashes were observed on these segments. AddiƟonally, transit
routes are a known generator for non-motorized traffic thus an appropriate surrogate measure to
address the Vulnerable Road User presence that this factor intends to capture.
C-13
High Risk Network Methodology and Results
Page | 14
Detailed Score Ranges
Table 2 shows the detailed score criteria as described in the previous secƟon.
Table 2: Scoring Criteria
Variable
Criteria
Score
Crash history
0-15
KSI crashes in the 5-year period
3 points per KSI crash, up to 15
15
Downtown context
0-5
Downtown area
if Downtown
5
Driver behavior
0-30
278 Segments with crowdsourced speed data (INRIX)
Posted speed
if 40+ mph
5
Average speed (INRIX)
0-15
<30 mph
0
30-35 mph
6
35-45 mph
12
45+ mph
15
Travel time/ congestion (INRIX)
0-5
* For the purposes of this evaluation, travel time variability has
been used as a surrogate measure of congestion. Higher standard
deviation means more variability and therefore more congestion.
<0.2 standard deviations
0
0.2-0.3 standard deviations
2
0.3+ standard deviations
5
Within 1/4 mile of Alcohol establishment
0-5
371 Segments without crowdsourced speed data (INRIX)
Posted speed
0-20
<30 mph
0
30-35 mph
8
40+ mph
20
Within 1/4 mile of Alcohol establishment
0-10
Road geometry
0-30
Road configuration (Median/#Lanes)
0-17
Undivided/ 2 lanes
10
Undivided/ 3 lanes
17
Undivided/ 4 lanes
17
Two Way Left Turn Lane/ 2-3 lanes
4
Two Way Left Turn Lane/ 4 lanes
15
Divided/ 2-3 lanes
0
Divided/ 4 lanes
6
Divided/ >4 lanes
12
Increased curvature
Curvature ratio>1.03
3
Density of intersections/ Conflict
0-10
< 3.6 intersections/mile
0
3.6-6.3 intersections/mile
4
> 6.3 intersections/mile
10
Vulnerable Road Users
0-20
Within 1/4 mile of a park
3
Within 1/4 mile of a school
3
Within 1/4 mile of community center
3
Within 1/4 mile of transit route
6
Car free households
5 points if greater than 4%
5
C-14
High Risk Network Methodology and Results
Page | 15
INTERSECTION EVALUATION
The intersecƟon evaluaƟon was performed leveraging the Maricopa AssociaƟon of Governments
(MAG) Tool for Network Screening called MAG IntersecƟon Safety Tool (MIST). EvaluaƟon was
performed by MAG for 101 intersecƟons in Buckeye, however, that did not include several
intersecƟons in the Buckeye Planning Area that are currently county intersecƟons. To account for
those locaƟons, the MAG MIST results for county intersecƟons were evaluated as well. 542
intersecƟons on non-incorporated Maricopa County Areas were evaluated in the MAG MIST, not all
of which are in the Buckeye Planning area. For the purposes of this HRN evaluaƟon, only the county
intersecƟons within the Buckeye Planning area were evaluated.
The tool uses predicƟve safety evaluaƟon using custom Safety Performance FuncƟons tailored to the
MAG region and disƟnct for each intersecƟon type. It combines crash data (from the ADOT general
database, from 2015 to 2023) with esƟmated entering volumes at the intersecƟon. Based on the
comparison of expected crashes and observed crashes, four levels of service of safety (LOSS) were
idenƟfied:
-
LOSS 1: Indicates low potenƟal for crash reducƟon
-
LOSS 2: Indicates low to moderate potenƟal for crash reducƟon
-
LOSS 3: Indicates moderate to high potenƟal for crash reducƟon
-
LOSS 4: Indicates high potenƟal for crash reducƟon
Figure 9 shows the Level of Service of Safety for the intersecƟons evaluated in the Buckeye network.
Figure 9: Level of Service of Safety of IntersecƟons in City of Buckeye
C-15
High Risk Network Methodology and Results
Page | 16
AddiƟonal EvaluaƟon of High KSI Crash IntersecƟons
Two intersecƟons were idenƟfied in the Buckeye Crash History evaluaƟon as having two (or more)
KSI crashes in the 2019-2023 evaluaƟon period that were not evaluated on the MAG MIST tool
through the City of Buckeye screening nor through the Maricopa County screening. The intersecƟons
are Beloat Road & Jackrabbit Trail and Rainbow Road & Sundance Parkway.
In order to esƟmate the Level of Service of Safety for those two intersecƟons, intersecƟons with
similar configuraƟon were summarized from the Buckeye and Maricopa County network screening
data provided through MAG MIST. Observed crashes greater than or equal to the average predicted
KABC frequency at similar locaƟons jusƟfy an esƟmated LOSS four. Based on this esƟmate, both
intersecƟons were included in the HRN. Table 3 shows the summary for the two intersecƟons.
Table 3: EsƟmated LOSS for IntersecƟons with More than 2 KSI Crashes that Were Not Evaluated by MAG
Intersection
Beloat Rd & Jackrabbit Trail
Rainbow Rd & Sundance Pkwy
Configuration
Rural, 3 leg, stop control
(R3ST)
Urban, 4 leg, stop control (U4ST)
MAG MIST similar
locations
(Buckeye and
County)
Number of intersections
44
149
Average Entering Volume
5,334
10,149
Average Predicted KABC
crashes
0.4
1.4
Estimated Entering Traffic
5,334
10,142
Traffic Volume Source
Average of R3ST locations
Estimated from peak hour
volume (Buckeye Capacity 2024-
25)
Observed KSI in the 5 year period
2
2
Estimated LOSS
LOSS 4
LOSS 4
RESULTS – THE HIGH-RISK NETWORK
Segments
AŌer applying the methodology to the segments, risk score points varied from 6 to 73, with an
average score of 31.1 points. Figure 10 shows how the points are staƟsƟcally distributed. Behavior
points are more evenly distributed than geometry points. It reflects more diversity on the behavior
aƩributes of the segments, when compared to the geometry aƩributes. The road network in Buckeye
is uniform with fewer locaƟons that deviate from the norm. Vulnerable Road User points are low,
consistent with exisƟng low volumes of non-motorists.
C-16
High Risk Network Methodology and Results
Page | 17
Figure 10: Total Point DistribuƟon (LeŌ) and Factor Point DistribuƟon (Middle)
Criteria for inclusion on the HRN is the 90th percenƟle score, i.e. the top 10% highest scores. That
corresponds to a risk score of 41 points or more. The HRN segments were divided into two Ɵers. Tier
1 represents the top 5% segments, and Tier 2 represents the top 10% segments. Table 4 shows the
summary of the HRN segments and Figure 11 shows the HRN segments by Tier.
Table 4: HRN Segment Summary
# Segments
Length (miles)
KSI Crash Count
5 yrs 2019-2023
Tier 1
(95th percentile/ 47-73 points)
37
14.7 (4.3%)
43 (24.4%)
Tier 2
(90th percentile/ 41-46 points)
36
20.2 (5.9%)
33 (18.8%)
All HRN
73
34.8 (10.1%)
76 (43.2%)
C-17
High Risk Network Methodology and Results
Page | 18
*Note – two segments on Old Highway 80 south of the Gila River Floodplain are part of the Tier 2 HRN and are not shown
in the map (See aƩachment D for full map).
Figure 11: Segment HRN Results by Tier
C-18
High Risk Network Methodology and Results
Page | 19
IntersecƟons
IntersecƟons idenƟfied as Level of Service of Safety Four (high potenƟal for safety improvements)
were selected to be part of the HRN. Forty (40) intersecƟons were selected to be included in the HRN;
29 from the Buckeye network screening, 9 from the Maricopa County Screening, and 2 from
esƟmated LOSS 4. Of the intersecƟons from the Maricopa County network screening, 7 intersecƟons
idenƟfied as LOSS 4 are on the Buckeye Planning Area boundary and are currently intersecƟons not
owned and operated by the city. Those locaƟons are shown on the map for reference only and are
not included in the HRN.
Figure 12: IntersecƟons with LOSS 4 in the Buckeye Planning Area
C-19
High Risk Network Methodology and Results
Page | 20
IntersecƟon Tiers
For the purposes of prioriƟzaƟon and project definiƟon, intersecƟons were separated into two Ɵers.
IntersecƟon Tier 1 represents the intersecƟons with 20 or more excess crashes (as provided in the
MIST tool for 2019-2023 data) and the intersecƟons included in the HRN with esƟmated LOSS. Tier 1
has 14 intersecƟons and Tier 2 has 26 intersecƟons. Figure 13 illustrates the HRN intersecƟons
grouped by Ɵer.
Figure 13: HRN IntersecƟons, Grouped by Tier
C-20
High Risk Network Methodology and Results
Page | 21
HIGH INJURY LOCATIONS
To complement the High-Risk Network, High Injury locaƟons were idenƟfied. Similarly to the High-
Risk Network, intersecƟons and segments were evaluated for their injury frequency regardless of
road ownership or developed/ undeveloped context. High Injury segments are defined as segments
with 3 or more non-intersecƟon KSI crashes in a five-year period (2019-2023 in this case) in a one-
mile segment. High Injury intersecƟons are defined as locaƟons with three or more KSI crashes in a
five-year period. One segment and six intersecƟons met that criteria when crash data from 2019 to
2023 was evaluated. The High Injury locaƟons are listed below and shown in Figure 14.
i.
Baseline Road from Turner Road to half mile west of Wilson Avenue, 3 KA
ii. SR-85 & Baseline Road, 7 KA
iii. SR-85 & Broadway Road, 6 KA
iv. SR-85 & Southern Avenue, 6 KA
v. SR-85 & Hazen Road, 3 KA
vi. SR-85 & MC-85 Road, 3 KA
vii. Yuma Rd & West Sundance Pkwy, 3 KA
Figure 14: High Injury Segments and IntersecƟons
C-21
High Risk Network Methodology and Results
Page | 22
KEY TAKEAWAYS
A High-Risk Network was idenƟfied for the City of Buckeye Planning Area through the evaluaƟon of
segments and through the MAG MIST resource for predicƟve safety analysis of intersecƟons. The
Buckeye TSP HRN is shown in Figure 15.
*Note – two segments on Old Highway 80 south of the Gila River Floodplain are part of the Tier 2 HRN and are not shown
in the map (See AƩachment D for full map).
Figure 15: High Risk Network for Buckeye Planning Area (2019-2023 data)
C-22
High Risk Network Methodology and Results
Page | 23
Segments
Risk on segments was measured through a risk score, calculated as a weighted score based
on the idenƟfied risk factors. Five factors were used to define and measure risk, namely Crash
History, Downtown Context (Safer Roads and Safer People), Driver Behavior (Safer People and
Safer Speeds), Road Geometry (Safer Roads), and Vulnerable Road Users (Safer People).
The idenƟfied High-Risk Network is comprised of 73 segments spread over 34.8 miles. It
represents 10% of evaluated miles and 43% of 2019-2023 KSI crashes. It covers Miller Road,
Yuma Road, downtown Buckeye, SR-85 crossings, and parts of Baseline Road and MC-85.
The High Risk Network segments were divided into two Ɵers. Tier 1 represents the top 5%
segments, and Tier 2 represents the top 10% segments.
Intersections
IntersecƟons were evaluated through the MAG MIST tool, a network screening resource
which uses predicƟve safety analysis for intersecƟons.
Forty (40) intersecƟons were selected to be included in the HRN, 29 from the Buckeye
network screening, 9 from the Maricopa County Screening, and 2 from esƟmated LOSS4.
The High-Risk Network intersecƟons were divided into two Ɵers. IntersecƟon Tier 1 represents
the intersecƟons with 20 or more excess crashes and the intersecƟons included in the HRN
with esƟmated LOSS4. Tier 1 has 14 intersecƟons and Tier 2 has 26 intersecƟons.
High Injury Locations
One segment met the criteria for High Injury LocaƟon: Baseline Road from Turner Road to half
mile west of Wilson Avenue.
Six intersecƟons with 3 or more KSI crashes in the five-year period were idenƟfied as a High
Injury LocaƟon, five of which were on SR-85 in addiƟon to the intersecƟon of Yuma Road and
Sundance Parkway.
C-23
High Risk Network Methodology and Results
Page | 24
HOW THE HRN INFORMED PROJECT SELECTION
The High-Risk Network and the High Injury LocaƟons were used to guide the selecƟon of project
locaƟons for further evaluaƟon. Tier 1 intersecƟons, Tier 1 segments, and all idenƟfied high injury
locaƟons were included in the project list. Tier 2 intersecƟons and segments were considered for
inclusion when they were adjacent to, or located between, Tier 1 locaƟons and demonstrated similar
roadway characterisƟcs or crash paƩerns. Segments and intersecƟons were then grouped by
geospaƟal proximity to develop 31 projects with the highest potenƟal for road safety improvement.
Figure 16 illustrates the relaƟonship between the selected project locaƟons, the High-Risk Network,
and the High Injury LocaƟons.
Figure 16: Project SelecƟon, Based on HRN Tiers
C-24
Crash % Legend:
Ratio >2
Ratio >3
Ratio >5
Ratio - for each sub-sample of segment with the selected attribute = Crash frequency % / Centerline %
Attribute
Segment Characteristic
Length (mi)
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Present
15.4
4%
25
14%
2
9%
6
14%
Not Present
328.7
96%
151
86%
20
91%
36
86%
TOTAL
344.1
100%
176
100%
22
100%
42
100%
Present within 1/4 mile
38.4
11%
33
19%
6
27%
7
17%
Not Present
305.7
89%
143
81%
16
73%
35
83%
TOTAL
344.1
100%
176
100%
22
100%
42
100%
Present within 1/4 mile
10.9
3%
12
7%
2
9%
3
7%
Not Present
333.2
97%
164
93%
20
91%
39
93%
TOTAL
344.1
100%
176
100%
22
100%
42
100%
Present within 1/4 mile
30.8
9%
42
24%
9
41%
8
19%
Not Present
313.3
91%
134
76%
13
59%
34
81%
TOTAL
344.1
100%
176
100%
22
100%
42
100%
This column shows the share of
road centerlines that corresponds
to the attribute in each row. This is
the reference to which crash
distributions are compared to.
Attachment A – Comparison of Crash Data and Risk Factors
These columns show the crashes are distributed along segments divided by the attributes
shown on the left. The ratio highlights represent how these columns compare to the centerline
share.
Comparing the location of KA crashes from 2019 to 2023 to the location of the aforementioned risk factors supported the validation of the methodology. Crash types of crashes that occurred more
frequently than expected based on the length distributions were identified and highlighted as over-represented. Crash ratios were used to better understand where crashes are over-represented, ratios
are defined in this table as the division of crash frequency share over centerline share for each attribute. For example, segments with transit present represent 4% of the centerlines of the network
evaluated, but 14% of all KA crashes were observed on these segments. Thus we say that segments with transit present have an over-representation of KA crashes. In this case, the ratio is 14%/4% = 3.5.
Transit Presence
Proximity to School
Proximity to Parks
Proximity to Alcohol
Establishment
Fatal and Serious Injury (2019-2023)
Centerline
All KA
Ped/Bike KA
Single Vehicle KA
C-25
Crash % Legend:
Ratio >2
Ratio >3
Ratio >5
Ratio - for each sub-sample of segment with the selected attribute = Crash frequency % / Centerline %
Attribute
Segment Characteristic
Length (mi)
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
This column shows the share of
road centerlines that corresponds
to the attribute in each row. This is
the reference to which crash
distributions are compared to.
These columns show the crashes are distributed along segments divided by the attributes
shown on the left. The ratio highlights represent how these columns compare to the centerline
share.
Fatal and Serious Injury (2019-2023)
Centerline
All KA
Ped/Bike KA
Single Vehicle KA
Present
27.9
8%
7
4%
1
5%
3
7%
Not Present
316.2
92%
169
96%
21
95%
39
93%
TOTAL
344.1
100%
176
100%
22
100%
42
100%
Present within 1/4 mile
14.8
4%
12
7%
2
9%
3
7%
Not Present
329.3
96%
164
93%
20
91%
39
93%
TOTAL
344.1
100%
176
100%
22.0
100%
42.0
100%
Present
77.4
23%
41
23%
6
27%
7
17%
Not Present
266.7
77%
135
77%
16
73%
35
83%
TOTAL
344.1
100%
176
100%
22
100%
42
100%
Within Downtown Buckeye
12.0
3%
11
6%
2
9%
3
7%
Not Within Downtown
332.1
97%
165
94%
20
91%
39
93%
TOTAL
344.1
100%
176
100%
22
100%
42
100%
Present
10.5
3%
7
4%
0%
2
5%
Not Present
333.6
97%
169
96%
22
100%
40
95%
TOTAL
344.1
100%
176
100%
22
100%
42
100%
<=25 MPH
12.2
4%
5
3%
3
14%
2
5%
30 MPH
14.2
4%
8
5%
1
5%
1
2%
35 MPH
50.1
15%
15
9%
4
18%
6
14%
40 MPH
6.3
2%
4
2%
0%
1
2%
45 MPH
29.7
9%
36
20%
6
27%
9
21%
50 MPH
170.6
50%
82
47%
7
32%
13
31%
55+ MPH
61.0
18%
26
15%
1
5%
10
24%
TOTAL
344.1
100%
176
100%
22
100%
42
100%
Commercial Zoning
Downtown
Industrial Zoning
Speed Limit
Curvature >1.05
Community Center
C-26
Crash % Legend:
Ratio >2
Ratio >3
Ratio >5
Ratio - for each sub-sample of segment with the selected attribute = Crash frequency % / Centerline %
Attribute
Segment Characteristic
Length (mi)
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
This column shows the share of
road centerlines that corresponds
to the attribute in each row. This is
the reference to which crash
distributions are compared to.
These columns show the crashes are distributed along segments divided by the attributes
shown on the left. The ratio highlights represent how these columns compare to the centerline
share.
Fatal and Serious Injury (2019-2023)
Centerline
All KA
Ped/Bike KA
Single Vehicle KA
Bike Lane
45.2
13%
38
22%
7
32%
8
19%
Multi-Use Path - Paved
12.2
4%
2
1%
1
5%
0%
Multi-Use Path - Unpaved
11.8
3%
0%
0%
0%
Paved Shoulder
53.8
16%
21
12%
1
5%
5
12%
Recreational Trail
0.2
0%
0%
0%
0%
None
220.8
64%
115
65%
13
59%
29
69%
TOTAL
344.1
100%
176
100%
22
100%
42
100%
0
153.6
45%
90
51%
9
41%
17
40%
<1
51.0
15%
15
9%
1
5%
7
17%
1-3.6
51.3
15%
26
15%
4
18%
6
14%
3.6-6.3
49.6
14%
30
17%
5
23%
7
17%
6.3+
38.6
11%
15
9%
3
14%
5
12%
TOTAL
344.1
100%
176
100%
22
100%
42
100%
2-3
299.2
87%
146
83%
17
77%
36
86%
4
40.1
12%
17
10%
2
9%
5
12%
>4
4.8
1%
13
7%
3
14%
1
2%
TOTAL
344.1
100%
176
100%
22
100%
42
100%
Median Present
57.5
17%
36
20%
7
32%
6
14%
No Media
286.6
83%
140
80%
15
68%
36
86%
TOTAL
344.1
100%
176
100%
22
100%
42
100%
Intersection density
(minor streets/
mile)
Number of lanes
Median presence
Bike Facility
C-27
Crash % Legend:
Ratio >2
Ratio >3
Ratio >5
Ratio - for each sub-sample of segment with the selected attribute = Crash frequency % / Centerline %
Attribute
Segment Characteristic
Length (mi)
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
This column shows the share of
road centerlines that corresponds
to the attribute in each row. This is
the reference to which crash
distributions are compared to.
These columns show the crashes are distributed along segments divided by the attributes
shown on the left. The ratio highlights represent how these columns compare to the centerline
share.
Fatal and Serious Injury (2019-2023)
Centerline
All KA
Ped/Bike KA
Single Vehicle KA
Undivided - 2 lanes
276.2
80%
126
72%
14
64%
32
76%
Undivided - 3 lanes
5.6
2%
11
6%
1
5%
3
7%
Undivided - 4 lanes
4.8
1%
3
2%
1
2%
Divided 2 lanes
17.4
5%
9
5%
2
9%
1
2%
Divided 4 lanes
35.3
10%
14
8%
2
9%
4
10%
Divided >4 lanes
4.8
1%
13
7%
3
14%
1
2%
TOTAL
344.1
100%
176
100%
22
100%
42
100%
Present - within 1/4 mile of a
2010 BG with share of car
free HH >4%
92.2
27%
70
40%
10
45%
17
40%
Not present
251.8
73%
106
60%
12
55%
25
60%
TOTAL
344.1
100%
176
100%
22
100%
42
100%
Lane Configuration
Car free households
C-28
High Risk Network Methodology and Results
AƩachment B – List of HRN Segments
SegID
STREET
FROM
TO
Ownership
Length (miles)
HRN Tier
TOTAL HRN
POINTS
BEHAVIOR POINTS
GEOMETRY
POINTS
VRU POINTS
CONTEXT POINTS
CRASH HISTORY
POINTS
5331
E MC 85
W BASELINE RD
W EASTON
City of Buckeye
0.33 Tier 1
73
18
30
20
5
0
5330
E MC 85
W EASTON
N 7TH ST
City of Buckeye
0.56 Tier 1
66
18
14
20
5
9
5543
W MC 85
N 4TH ST
N 1ST ST
City of Buckeye
0.25 Tier 1
66
18
20
20
5
3
5329
E MC 85
N 5TH ST
N 4TH ST
City of Buckeye
0.08 Tier 1
63
18
20
20
5
0
5885
E MC 85
N 7TH ST
N 5TH ST
City of Buckeye
0.17 Tier 1
63
18
20
20
5
0
5547
S MILLER RD
W SOUTHERN AVE
W COPPER FALLS BLVD
City of Buckeye
0.39 Tier 1
60
22
21
14
0
3
5574
N 4TH ST
E MC 85
W BASELINE RD
City of Buckeye
0.61 Tier 1
60
18
20
14
5
3
5570
W MC 85
N 1ST ST
S 255TH AVE
MCDOT
0.50 Tier 1
59
30
10
14
5
0
5550
E BASELINE RD
W BASELINE RD
N CENTRAL BLVD
MCDOT
0.64 Tier 1
58
10
20
20
5
3
5585
N 1ST ST
W MC 85
W BASELINE RD
City of Buckeye
0.52 Tier 1
57
18
20
11
5
3
5520
S MILLER RD
W BASELINE RD
N ALARCON BLVD
City of Buckeye
0.47 Tier 1
54
6
20
20
5
3
5534
S 1ST ST
S MILLER RD
N 1ST ST
City of Buckeye
0.25 Tier 1
54
18
20
11
5
0
5609
W YUMA RD
N SUNDANCE PKWY W
S WATSON RD
City of Buckeye
0.25 Tier 1
54
22
12
11
0
9
5535
S MILLER RD
W LOWER BUCKEYE RD
W DURANGO ST
City of Buckeye
0.49 Tier 1
53
18
21
11
0
3
5525
S APACHE RD
W DURANGO ST
W YUMA RD
City of Buckeye
0.33 Tier 1
52
30
14
5
0
3
5529
S WATSON RD
W LOWER BUCKEYE RD
W DURANGO ST
City of Buckeye
0.49 Tier 1
52
11
21
8
0
12
5582
N ALARCON BLVD
W KINO PL
W MARICOPA RD
City of Buckeye
0.45 Tier 1
52
10
20
14
5
3
5498
S MILLER RD
W BELOAT RD
S 1ST ST
City of Buckeye
0.25 Tier 1
51
18
14
11
5
3
5510
S MILLER RD
W COPPER FALLS BLVD
W BROADWAY RD
City of Buckeye
0.61 Tier 1
51
22
17
9
0
3
5606
W BASELINE RD
N 4TH ST
N 1ST ST
City of Buckeye
0.28 Tier 1
50
5
23
17
5
0
5055
W MC 85
DS@2640W S ROOKS RD
S SR 85
MCDOT
0.47 Tier 1
49
30
10
6
0
3
C-29
High Risk Network Methodology and Results
SegID
STREET
FROM
TO
Ownership
Length (miles)
HRN Tier
TOTAL HRN
POINTS
BEHAVIOR POINTS
GEOMETRY
POINTS
VRU POINTS
CONTEXT POINTS
CRASH HISTORY
POINTS
5126
W YUMA RD
DS@2640W S RAINBOW RD DS@3943W S RAINBOW RD
City of Buckeye
0.25 Tier 1
49
22
16
11
0
0
5326
W MCDOWELL RD
N VERRADO WAY
DS@2640W N VERRADO WAY
City of Buckeye
0.50 Tier 1
49
30
16
0
0
3
5647
W MC 85
S SR 85
S SR 85
MCDOT
0.09 Tier 1
49
30
10
0
0
9
5038
W MC 85
S VERRADO WAY
DS@2640W S VERRADO WAY
MCDOT
0.50 Tier 1
48
20
17
5
0
6
5054
W YUMA RD
S APACHE RD
S 247TH AVE
City of Buckeye
0.50 Tier 1
48
24
10
11
0
3
5095
W BELOAT RD
S DEAN RD
DS@2640W S DEAN RD
MCDOT
0.50 Tier 1
48
20
20
5
0
3
5127
W YUMA RD
S RAINBOW RD
DS@2640W S RAINBOW RD
City of Buckeye
0.50 Tier 1
48
17
16
6
0
9
5199
W MC 85
S PERRYVILLE RD
DS@2640W S PERRYVILLE RD
MCDOT
0.50 Tier 1
48
20
17
5
0
6
5122
W INDIAN SCHOOL RD N 191ST AVE
N 195TH AVE
MCDOT
0.51 Tier 1
47
27
14
0
0
6
5170
W YUMA RD
DS@2640W
S
VERRADO
WAY
S DEAN RD
MCDOT
0.18 Tier 1
47
17
21
9
0
0
5214
W YUMA RD
S WATSON RD
DS@2640W S WATSON RD
City of Buckeye
0.50 Tier 1
47
24
6
8
0
9
5226
W MCDOWELL RD
N JACKRABBIT TRL
N 199TH AVE
City of Buckeye
0.50 Tier 1
47
30
14
0
0
3
5258
W MC 85
S SHEPARDS TRL
W BASELINE RD
MCDOT
0.38 Tier 1
47
30
4
8
5
0
5351
S RAINBOW RD
W SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVE W MC 85
MCDOT
0.51 Tier 1
47
19
20
5
0
3
5580
W BASELINE RD
N CENTRAL BLVD
N 4TH ST
City of Buckeye
0.12 Tier 1
47
5
20
17
5
0
5659
W DURANGO ST
S 249TH AVE
S MILLER RD
City of Buckeye
0.24 Tier 1
47
19
14
11
0
3
5151
W SOUTHERN AVE
S MILLER RD
DS@2640W S MILLER RD
City of Buckeye
0.50 Tier 2
46
24
14
8
0
0
5171
W YUMA RD
S VERRADO WAY
DS@2640W S VERRADO WAY
City of Buckeye
0.50 Tier 2
46
17
17
12
0
0
5196
W BELOAT RD
S 7TH ST
S MILLER RD
City of Buckeye
0.51 Tier 2
46
0
27
14
5
0
5560
N CENTRAL BLVD
W KINO PL
E MARICOPA RD
City of Buckeye
0.31 Tier 2
46
10
20
11
5
0
5562
W YUMA RD
S TUTHILL RD
S VERRADO WAY
City of Buckeye
0.47 Tier 2
46
17
20
9
0
0
5192
W LOWER BUCKEYE RD S 223RD AVE
S RAINBOW RD
MCDOT
0.51 Tier 2
45
20
14
11
0
0
C-30
High Risk Network Methodology and Results
SegID
STREET
FROM
TO
Ownership
Length (miles)
HRN Tier
TOTAL HRN
POINTS
BEHAVIOR POINTS
GEOMETRY
POINTS
VRU POINTS
CONTEXT POINTS
CRASH HISTORY
POINTS
5232
W YUMA RD
S WINDMILL VILLAGE BLVD
S
DS@2640W S WINDMILL VILLAGE BLVD
S
City of Buckeye
0.50 Tier 2
45
17
16
9
0
3
5348
S ROOKS RD
W BASELINE RD
W MARICOPA RD
City of Buckeye
0.50 Tier 2
45
20
20
5
0
0
5443
S TUTHILL RD
EOP
DS@2640N EOP
MCDOT
0.50 Tier 2
45
30
10
5
0
0
5541
S PALO VERDE RD
DS@5267N
W
BUCKEYE
AIRPORT ENTRANCE
DS@7091N
W
BUCKEYE
AIRPORT
ENTRANCE
City of Buckeye
0.35 Tier 2
45
25
17
0
0
3
5548
S APACHE RD
W BASELINE RD
E MARICOPA RD
City of Buckeye
0.45 Tier 2
45
18
14
8
5
0
5244
W MCDOWELL RD
N 191ST AVE
N JACKRABBIT TRL
MCDOT
0.50 Tier 2
44
24
20
0
0
0
5247
W MC 85
S JACKRABBIT TRL
S 203RD AVE
MCDOT
0.50 Tier 2
44
20
10
8
0
6
5395
S JACKRABBIT TRL
W BELOAT RD
S JACKRABBIT TRL
MCDOT
0.50 Tier 2
44
20
13
5
0
6
5566
W KINO PL
N CENTRAL BLVD
N ALARCON BLVD
City of Buckeye
0.06 Tier 2
44
18
10
11
5
0
5612
W BROADWAY RD
S SR 85
S SR 85
City of Buckeye
0.09 Tier 2
44
19
10
0
0
15
5661
W BASELINE RD
S SR 85
S SR 85
MCDOT
0.09 Tier 2
44
22
10
0
0
12
5707
S OLD US HWY 80
DS@13055S
W
DESERT
ROSE RD
DS@28374E W DESERT ROSE RD
MCDOT
2.90 Tier 2
44
20
13
5
0
6
5107
W BASELINE RD
N 1ST ST
DS@2640W N 1ST ST
City of Buckeye
0.50 Tier 2
43
17
10
11
5
0
5359
S APACHE RD
DS@2640N
W
LOWER
BUCKEYE RD
W DURANGO ST
City of Buckeye
0.41 Tier 2
43
30
8
5
0
0
5517
S MILLER RD
N ALARCON BLVD
W SOUTHERN AVE
City of Buckeye
0.50 Tier 2
43
16
10
14
0
3
5037
W MC 85
DS@2640W
S
VERRADO
WAY
S DEAN RD
MCDOT
0.51 Tier 2
42
20
17
5
0
0
5198
W MC 85
DS@2640W S PERRYVILLE
RD
S JACKRABBIT TRL
MCDOT
0.47 Tier 2
42
20
17
5
0
0
5213
W YUMA RD
DS@2640W S WATSON RD S APACHE RD
City of Buckeye
0.50 Tier 2
42
24
4
14
0
0
5545
S MILLER RD
W BROADWAY RD
W RANCHO VISTA DR
City of Buckeye
0.28 Tier 2
42
18
10
14
0
0
C-31
High Risk Network Methodology and Results
SegID
STREET
FROM
TO
Ownership
Length (miles)
HRN Tier
TOTAL HRN
POINTS
BEHAVIOR POINTS
GEOMETRY
POINTS
VRU POINTS
CONTEXT POINTS
CRASH HISTORY
POINTS
5710
S OLD US HWY 80
W OLD US HWY 80
W DESERT ROSE RD
MCDOT
2.99 Tier 2
42
20
13
0
0
9
5024
W BASELINE RD
S TURNER RD
DS@2640W S TURNER RD
MCDOT
0.50 Tier 2
41
22
10
0
0
9
5040
W SOUTHERN AVE
S SR 85
DS@2640W S SR 85
MCDOT
0.50 Tier 2
41
25
10
0
0
6
5056
W MC 85
S ROOKS RD
DS@2640W S ROOKS RD
MCDOT
0.50 Tier 2
41
20
10
11
0
0
5065
W BASELINE RD
S SR 85
DS@2640W S SR 85
MCDOT
0.50 Tier 2
41
22
10
0
0
9
5197
W BELOAT RD
S APACHE RD
S 7TH ST
City of Buckeye
0.50 Tier 2
41
8
17
11
5
0
5376
S JACKRABBIT TRL
W MC 85
DS@2640N W MC 85
MCDOT
0.50 Tier 2
41
17
10
5
0
9
5424
S RAINBOW RD
DS@2640N W BROADWAY
RD
W LOWER BUCKEYE RD
City of Buckeye
0.51 Tier 2
41
17
10
11
0
3
5531
S MILLER RD
W RANCHO VISTA DR
W WARNER ST
City of Buckeye
0.17 Tier 2
41
13
14
14
0
0
5592
N 195TH AVE
N JACKRABBIT TRL
W INDIAN SCHOOL RD
City of Buckeye
0.50 Tier 2
41
27
14
0
0
0
5853
S MILLER RD
W TONOPAH SALOME HWY I10 MILLER RD WB OP
City of Buckeye
0.11 Tier 2
41
30
6
5
0
0
C-32
High Risk Network Methodology and Results
AƩachment C – List of IntersecƟons IdenƟfied as Level of Service of Safety
Four
Intersection
Inclusion Criteria
#Legs
From MIST
Tier
Urban/
Rural
Major
AADT
Minor
AADT
Traffic
Control
Crash Rate Excess Expected Average
Crash Frequency with EB
Yuma Rd & Watson Rd
Buckeye Screening
4
U
38886
10884
Signal
0.997
87
1
Watson Rd & Sundance Ave
Buckeye Screening
3
U
38886
4865
Signal
0.647
61
1
Watson Rd & Broadway Rd
Buckeye Screening
4
R
3894
5972
Stop
1.728
47
1
SR-85 & Broadway Rd
Buckeye Screening
4
R
23609
3003
Stop
0.652
45
1
Jackrabbit Trl & I-10 Eastbound
Buckeye Screening
4
U
7046
12001
Stop
0.591
29
1
Yuma Rd & Sundance Pkwy
Buckeye Screening
4
U
10884
4865
Signal
0.986
28
1
Jackrabbit Trl & Indian School Rd
Buckeye Screening
4
U
6900
2834
Signal
1.313
26
1
Jackrabbit Trl & I-10 Westbound
Buckeye Screening
4
U
6787
14817
Stop
0.437
24
1
Miller Rd & Broadway Rd
Buckeye Screening
4
R
3448
24804
Stop
0.399
24
1
Watson Rd & Southern Ave
Buckeye Screening
3
R
15263
3582
Stop
0.485
24
1
Yuma Rd & Dean Rd
Buckeye Screening
3
U
2059
10884
Signal
0.847
24
1
Southern Ave & Apache Rd
Buckeye Screening
4
R
4898
15263
Stop
0.513
22
1
MC-85 & Airport Rd
Buckeye Screening
4
U
8352
5395
Stop
0.554
18
2
Watson Rd & Roeser Rd
Buckeye Screening
3
R
3582
4865
Stop
0.721
16
2
Jackrabbit Trl & Lower Buckeye Rd
County screening
4
U
4938
2015
Stop
0.788
13
2
Broadway Rd & Apache Rd
Buckeye Screening
4
R
4898
3448
Stop
0.62
11
2
Rainbow Rd & Broadway Rd
Buckeye Screening
4
R
3894
2714
Stop
0.691
10
2
195Th Ave & Camelback Rd
County screening
4
U
2834
1797
Stop
0.789
8
2
Baseline Rd & Johnson Rd
Buckeye Screening
4
R
4766
514
Stop
0.634
8
2
Sundance Pkwy & Sundance Ave
Buckeye Screening
3
U
4865
4865
Stop
0.375
8
2
Sundance Pkwy & Van Buren St
Buckeye Screening
3
U
4865
4865
Stop
0.313
6
2
Jackrabbit Trl & Roosevelt St
County screening
3
U
14817
1797
Stop
0.165
5
2
C-33
High Risk Network Methodology and Results
Intersection
Inclusion Criteria
#Legs
From MIST
Tier
Urban/
Rural
Major
AADT
Minor
AADT
Traffic
Control
Crash Rate Excess Expected Average
Crash Frequency with EB
Southern Ave & Rooks Rd
Buckeye Screening
4
R
100
15263
Stop
0.139
5
2
Rainbow Rd & Lower Buckeye Rd
Buckeye Screening
4
U
2485
3059
Stop
0.384
4
2
Sundance Pkwy & Dean Rd
Buckeye Screening
4
U
2059
4865
Stop
0.308
4
2
W Blue Horizons Pkwy & Jackrabbit Trl
Buckeye Screening
3
U
4753
4865
Stop
0.19
4
2
Yuma Rd & Apache Rd
Buckeye Screening
3
U
5701
5062
Stop
0.198
4
2
Beloat Rd & Airport Rd
County screening
3
U
3778
5395
Stop
0.166
3
2
Canyon Springs Blvd & Desert Vista Blvd
Buckeye Screening
4
R
1646
752
Stop
0.635
3
2
Indian School Rd & Acacia Way
Buckeye Screening
3
U
2930
4865
Stop
0.234
3
2
293Rd Ave & Tartesso Pkwy
Buckeye Screening
3
R
1646
752
Stop
0.381
2
2
Dean Rd & Southern Ave
County screening
3
U
2059
2572
Stop
0.329
2
2
Hazen Rd & Rooks Rd
County screening
4
R
2399
78
Stop
0.492
2
2
MC-85 & Rooks Rd
Buckeye Screening
4
R
4114
78
Stop
0.29
2
2
Southern Ave & Johnson Rd
Buckeye Screening
4
R
755
1390
Stop
0.568
2
2
193Rd Dr & Camelback Rd
County screening
3
U
1797
1797
Stop
0.169
1
2
Broadway Rd & Palo Verde Rd
County screening
3
R
2039
54
Stop
0.145
0
2
Johnson Rd & Broadway Rd
County screening
3
R
54
755
Stop
0.376
0
2
Beloat Rd & Jackrabbit Trl
Estimate - County
3
R
Not available
Stop
Not available
1
Rainbow Rd & Sundance Pkwy
Estimate - City
4
U
Not available
Stop
Not available
1
From the Maricopa County Network screening – At the boundary the Buckeye Planning Area, not included in the HRN, listed for
reference
1. Baseline Rd & 331st Ave
2. Perryville Rd & McDowell Rd
3. Perryville Rd & Yuma Rd
4. 331st Ave & Salome Hwy
5. Perryville Rd & I-10 Exit 122 G-Ramp
6. Mc 85 & Perryville Rd
7. Perryville Rd & Olive Ave
C-34
High Risk Network Methodology and Results
AƩachment D – Full Planning Area Map
C-35
Page 43
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX D:
PHASE 1 COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
2
Table of Contents
1
Background ................................................................................................................................ 3
2
Materials.................................................................................................................................... 5
Fact Sheet .................................................................................................................................. 5
Social Media............................................................................................................................... 5
Webpage ................................................................................................................................... 6
Online Ads ................................................................................................................................. 6
Flyers ......................................................................................................................................... 6
Window Clings ........................................................................................................................... 6
A-Frame Signs ............................................................................................................................ 6
Email .......................................................................................................................................... 6
Press Release ............................................................................................................................. 7
Giveaway Items .......................................................................................................................... 7
3
Community Events ..................................................................................................................... 7
4
Virtual Community Meeting ....................................................................................................... 8
Zoom Polls ................................................................................................................................. 8
5
Online Survey ........................................................................................................................... 10
Notifications ............................................................................................................................ 10
Respondents ............................................................................................................................ 10
Questionnaire .......................................................................................................................... 10
Social Map ............................................................................................................................... 17
6
Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 18
7
Appendix.................................................................................................................................. 19
D-1
3
1 Background
The City of Buckeye is developing its first Transportation Safety Plan (TSP) as part of the United
States Department of Transportation Safe Roads and Streets for All (SS4A) Program. Buckeye was
awarded a grant from the program of $600,000 and has set aside $150,000 to develop the plan.
To create an effective TSP, community and stakeholder engagement are key. Public engagement is
important as the City aims to create a plan that meets the needs and values of the community,
ensuring broad support. This approach recognizes that everyone plays a role and shares
responsibility in enhancing transportation safety. Agency stakeholder engagement is also very
important because several agencies have responsibility over facilities and policies that are related
to plan implementation.
The TSP Team has developed a Public Engagement Plan to guide engagement with the public
during the plan process. Public Engagement during plan development was conducted in a three-
phase effort as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 – Public Engagement Schedule
During Phase 1, the TSP Team engaged the public at community events, using an online survey,
and at a virtual community meeting. The team also developed and distributed or posted
informational materials. This report summarizes public engagement activities and results between
January 1 and March 21, 2025. The results are summarized in Figure 2.
D-2
D-2
4
Figure 2 – Public Engagement Results
D-3
D-3
5
2 Materials
To facilitate communication with the public, the TSP Team created fact sheets, social media posts,
a webpage, an online survey, online ads, flyers, window clings, A-frame signs, an email message, a
press release, and giveaway items for events.
Fact Sheet
The fact sheet provides background on the SS4A program, recent Buckeye crash statistics, TSP
Team contact information and the plan development process. It is a bilingual document, with
English on one side and Spanish on the reverse. The Phase 1 fact sheet is included as Appendix A.
Social Media
Social media posts were created during Phase 1 to accomplish two goals—obtain survey
responses and publicize the Phase 1 Community Virtual Meeting. The posts were posted on
Facebook, Instagram, X and NextDoor.
Post Topic
Platform
Date
Reactions
Take the Survey
X
02/12/2025
93 views, 2 likes
Take the Survey
X
01/31/2025
298 views, 1 repost
Take the Survey
Instagram
02/12/2025
1 like, 915 views
Take the Survey
Instagram
01/31/2025
22 likes, 555 views
ICYMI: Public
Meeting
Instagram
03/05/2025
3 likes, 429 views
Attend the Meeting Facebook
02/13/2025
3 likes
Attend the Meeting Facebook
02/13/2025
3 likes, 701 views
ICYMI: Public
Meeting
Facebook
03/05/2025
24 likes, 10 comments,
11,300 views
Take the Survey
Facebook
02/12/2025
4 likes, 703 views
Take the Survey
Facebook
01/31/2025
17 likes, 10 shares, 2
comments, 6,300 views
Take the Survey
Nextdoor
01/31/2025
3,969 impressions
Attend the
Meeting
Nextdoor
02/12/2025
3,658 impressions
ICYMI: Public
Meeting
Nextdoor
03/05/2025
2,085 impressions
Table 1 - Social Media Posts and Reactions
D-4
D-4
6
Webpage
The webpage was launched on January 16, 2025, and included the same information that is
featured on the Phase 1 fact sheet, a link to the online survey, and a link to opt in to the mailing
list. Images of the webpage are included as Appendix B.
Online Ads
Online ads were developed and published on AZCentral.com, a regional news source with a large
share of subscribers and viewers. The ads included information on the public meeting and were
linked to the project webpage. Ads were published between February 19 and February 25 and
garnered approximately 57,000 views. Online ads are included as Appendix C.
Flyers
Flyers were developed and distributed to activity centers within Buckeye, including City Hall, The
Landing, Buckeye Senior Center, Buckeye Downtown Library and Buckeye Coyote Library. Flyer
content was simple and graphically intensive, with primary and secondary calls to action. The first
was to attend the virtual meeting. The second was to take the online survey. A QR code to the
project webpage was highlighted on the flyer, which is included as Appendix D.
Window Clings
To develop a notice that could be displayed
for the duration of the TSP effort, a window
cling was designed and displayed at City
Hall, The Landing, Buckeye Water Resources
Service Center, Buckeye Senior Center,
Buckeye Downtown Library and Buckeye
Coyote Library. The window cling features
basic project information and a QR code to
the project webpage. The window cling is
included in this report as Appendix E and is
shown in Figure 3.
A-Frame Signs
A-frame signs were posted with a notice
featuring a call to action to take the online
survey, basic project information and a QR
code to the project webpage. Locations
included Sundance Park, Earl Edgar Park
and Skyline Regional Park. The design includes text in English and Spanish. It is included in this
report as Appendix F.
Email
A graphically intensive email message was sent using Buckeye’s GovDelivery account to 4,214
recipients on February 6 and 16. The email message encouraged primary and secondary calls to
action. The first was to attend the virtual meeting. The second was to take the online survey. A
Figure 3 - Window Cling
D-5
D-5
7
link to the project webpage was highlighted on email and newsletters which are included as
Appendix G. This information was also included in the city's bi-weekly newsletter on January 31
and February 12 which went to 15,714 recipients.
Press Release
A press release was drafted and sent to 12 media outlets on January 27. It encouraged readers to
attend the virtual meeting. The notice earned two placements —one in the West Valley View and
one in Signals AZ. The press release is included as Appendix H.
Giveaway Items
To encourage engagement with TSP Team members, giveaway items were designed and
distributed at two highly-attended community events—Buckeye Days and the Buckeye Air Fair.
The items are branded with the project name and feature the webpage URL to enable recipients
to review project information. Giveaway items include color changing pencils, sticky note pads,
stickers and bookmarks. These items are included as Appendix I.
3 Community Events
Approximately 34,500 community members
attended the two community events at
which the TSP Team participated. TSP Team
members encouraged community members
who stopped by the TSP table to play a
game by placing multicolored pom poms
into mason jars labeled with modes of
transportation according to which modes
they use. Then, community members were
invited to take the online survey using their
phone or an electronic tablet. If community
members declined to take the survey at the
event, TSP Team members encouraged
them to take it later by using the QR code
or URL imprinted on the giveaway items.
Table 2 shows relevant community event
details, including the dates and locations and approximate number of attendees.
Event Name
Date
Location
Number of Attendees
Buckeye Days
January 25, 2025
Downtown Buckeye
4,500
Buckeye Air Fair
February 15, 2025
3000 S. Palo Verde Rd
30,000
Table 2 – Community Events
D-6
D-6
8
4 Virtual Community Meeting
On Thursday, February 27, 2025, the TSP Team held a virtual community meeting using Zoom. The
purpose of the meeting was to inform community members of the TSP and their role in
developing it and to obtain feedback and answer questions. Thirteen members of the TSP Team
and other City of Buckeye staff and fifteen members of the public participated in the meeting. The
meeting agenda included instructions on the use of Zoom, introductions to the TSP Team, recent
Buckeye crash data, a description and timeline of the plan development process, an overview of
public engagement, a question-and-answer session and two Zoom polls. During the presentation,
the meeting facilitator broadcast important information in the chat, including the webpage URL
and a notification that Spanish interpretation was provided on the participant panel within the
meeting.
Zoom Polls
Zoom Poll Question 1 was used to determine the best way to engage with members of the
community and Zoom Poll Question 2 was used to determine the highest transportation safety
concern of attendees.
Question 1 showed 66% of meeting attendees prefer to be engaged by email. Figure 4 shows the
distribution of responses. Question 2 showed 42% of respondents are most concerned about
intersections. Figure 5 shows the distribution of responses for question 2.
Figure 4 – Zoom Poll: What is the best way for the Transportation Safety Plan team to share information with you?
D-7
D-7
9
Figure 5 – Zoom Poll: What areas of the transportation network in Buckeye are of the most concern to you?
The meeting participants asked ten questions and provided one comment. Question and
comment themes were:
•
Funding for future improvements
•
Potential improvements like speed bumps, lane striping, enforcement and on-street
parking in residential areas
The meeting presentation is included as Appendix J and a transcript of the Q & A portion of the
meeting is included as Appendix K.
D-8
10
5 Online Survey
An online survey was conducted from January 22 to March 21, 2025, to assess travelers’
perceptions of safety and identify areas of the transportation network and behaviors that
contribute to safety concerns. The survey consisted of two activities that were displayed on the
TSP webpage. The first activity was a survey questionnaire with thirteen questions. The second
activity was a social map activity. Printed copies of the questionnaire were made available to
collect feedback from individuals without access to online survey tools. Ten printed survey copies
were returned, the data from which was added to the online results data set.
The online activities were available in the following languages: English, Spanish, Mandarin
(Simplified), Tagalog, Vietnamese, French (Canadian), Arabic, Korean, Hindi, Russian and
Portuguese (Brazilian).
Notifications
Buckeye transportation network users were notified of the survey via social media posts,
newsletters, email blasts, window clings and A-frame signs. In addition, the Team asked people to
respond to the survey during in-person events and the virtual community meeting and
encouraged respondents to share the survey with others.
Respondents
A total of 1,106 responses were provided for the questionnaire and the social map. Overall, 61%
of responses were input via a mobile device, 35.75% via desktop and 3.25% via electronic tablet.
Questionnaire
Of the 1,106 total survey responses, 679 were questionnaire responses. The survey questionnaire
consisted of thirteen questions which are shown below with summarized response data. Survey
data is included as Appendix L.
Question 1 - Thinking of your experience traveling in Buckeye, do you agree that Buckeye streets
are safe?
Figure 6 – Question 1 Response Distribution
D-9
D-9
11
97.79% of respondents answered Question 1. Responses to Question 1 indicate that most
respondents disagreed that Buckeye streets are safe; however, a nearly equal share selected
“agree” or “neutral.”
Question 2 - Which areas are of greatest safety concern to you? Rank the following areas in
order from most concerning to least concerning.
Question 2 was answered by 90.13% of respondents. They selected intersections, main roads,
local streets, turn lanes and school traffic as the areas of greatest safety concern. In addition to
the listed areas, respondents had the option of selecting “other” and providing additional areas in
Question 3.
Figure 7 – Question 2 Response Distribution
D-10
D-10
12
Question 3 – Other – This question field was used for those who ranked “Other” for Question 2.
19.15% of respondents opted to rank another option. Stop signs, intersections, signals and
speeding occurred most often in the Question 3 comments.
Question 4 – Which behaviors are of greatest safety concern to you? Rank the following
behaviors in order from most concerning to least concerning.
Question 4 was answered by 89.4% of respondents. They ranked speeding, red light running,
distracted driving and impaired driving as the most concerning behaviors they observe. In addition
to the listed areas, respondents had the option to select and provide additional locations in
Question 5.
Figure 8 – Question 3 Responses Aggregated in Word Cloud Format
Figure 9 – Question 4 Response Distribution
D-11
13
Question 5 – Other – This question field was used for those who ranked “Other” for Question 4.
15.91% of respondents opted to include another option. Speeding, running a stop sign, reckless
driving, bicycling and maneuvers in intersections were named as the most concerning “other”
behaviors.
Question 6 – Which of the following strategies would you like to see Buckeye implement to
enhance safety for pedestrians, cyclists, public transit users and drivers? Rank the
following strategies in order of preference.
Question 6 was answered by 89.4% of respondents who ranked improving roadway design and
maintenance, traffic signal operations and enforcement of existing traffic laws the highest among
the eight strategies listed.
Figure X - Question 5 Responses Aggregated in Word Cloud Format
Figure 11 – Question 6 Response Distribution
Figure 10 – Question 5 Responses Aggregated in Word Cloud Format
D-12
14
Question 7 – What are the most effective ways for you and your family to learn about roadway
safety issues in Buckeye? Please choose two.
To ensure users of the Buckeye transportation network can engage during the development of the
plan, Question 7 was posed. It included seven options for responses: On social media, an article in
a newspaper, on the radio, on television, on a website, through email communications and an
“other” option. 96.32% of respondents reported that they prefer to engage on social media and
through email. Obtaining information by visiting a website followed as the third most preferred by
many respondents. To determine if methods existed that Buckeye had not used previously, an
“other” option was included, with Question 8 providing the opportunity to fill in what the
respondents’ “other” suggestions are.
Question 8 - This question field was used for those who ranked “Other” for Question 7.
6.33% of respondents ranked the “other” category. Some responses repeated the same options
shown in Question 7. Aside from those responses, the most common response to this question
was USPS mail. Other suggestions included text messages from the City, signage and providing
updates in City publications that are mailed.
Figure 12 – Question 7 Response Distribution
Figure 13 – Question 8 Responses Aggregated in Word Cloud Format
D-13
15
Question 9 – What is your home zip code?
98.53% of respondents provided their home zip code. Home zip code distribution of the top
twenty zip codes is shown in Figure 14.
Figure 13 – Home Zip Code Distribution
Figure 14 – Home Zip Code Distribution
D-14
16
Question 10 – What is your work/school zip code?
79.5% of respondents provided their work or school zip code. Work/school zip code distribution of
the top twenty zip codes is shown in Figure 15.
Question 11 – Do you provide care for school-age children?
Nearly 70% of survey respondents do not provide care for school-age children. This is an
interesting outcome to note because School Traffic was ranked fifth among areas of concern.
Figure 16 – Question 11 Response Distribution
Figure 15 – Work/School Zip Code Distribution
D-15
D-15
17
Question 13 – Do you have additional comments about road safety in Buckeye?
Question 13, the final question on the questionnaire, was answered by 57% of respondents. It
asked for general comments regarding the Buckeye transportation network, allowing respondents
to share the issues that were top of mind for them. The team categorized the comments based on
common themes, identified by their frequency, to highlight community concerns. The findings are
presented in the form of a word cloud.
Social Map
The following section summarizes the results of the social map exercise. For this exercise,
participants were asked to drop a marker(s) on a GIS map of the study area to provide location-
based comments on the following topics:
•
Intersection
•
Bicycling
•
Driving
•
School
•
Street
•
Turn Lane
•
Walking
Participants were also able to view other contributors’ comments and upvote or downvote them.
The “intersection” category received the most comments at 159, followed by “driving” at 102 and
“street” at 61. “Turn lane (43)”, “walking (33)”, “bicycling (11)” and “school (17)” received the
remainder of the comments.
A Google Map has been created that shows the comments by category along with the address and
latitude and longitude of the marker, its upvotes and downvotes and the date and time it was
submitted.
Figure 17 – Question 13 Comments Aggregated in Word Cloud Format
D-16
18
6 Conclusions
Phase 1 of engagement was successful in that the outreach methods developed awareness of the
TSP and generated feedback from the public that will be useful to the TSP Team as solutions are
identified and evaluated. According to the metrics identified in the PEP, the most successful
tactics were:
•
Webpage
•
Survey
•
Map Activity
•
Social Media Posts
The least successful tactics were:
•
Virtual Community Meeting
•
Media Stories
Desired Outcomes from Use of Tools and Tactics
Phase 1
Metrics
Phase 1 Results
Webpage
1,000 visitors
952 visitors
Survey
500 completions
679 completions
Map Activity
800 markers
426 markers
Virtual Community Meeting
25 attendees
15 attendees
Community Events
50 table visitors
35 to 75 table visitors
Social Media Posts
5 likes / 2 shares
79 likes, 11 shares
Online Advertisements
5,000 impressions
57,000 impressions
Partner Social Media Posts
6 posts
10 posts
Media Stories (TV, Radio, Online News)
1
2
D-17
19
7 Appendix
Appendix A – Fact Sheet - Front
D-18
20
Appendix A – Fact Sheet - Back
D-19
21
Appendix B - Webpage
D-20
22
D-21
22
D-22
23
Appendix C – Online Ads
D-23
24
D-24
25
Appendix D - Flyer
D-25
26
Appendix E – Window Cling
D-26
27
Appendix F – A-Frame Sign
D-27
28
Appendix G – Email Messages / Newsletters
D-28
29
D-29
30
D-30
31
Appendix H – Press Release
D-31
32
Appendix I - Giveaways
D-32
33
Appendix J – Virtual Community Meeting Presentation
D-33
Virtual Community Meeting | February 27, 2025
Virtual Community Meeting
February 27, 2025
D-34
Virtual Community Meeting | February 27, 2025
Agenda
•
Meet the Team
•
What is a Transportation Safety
Plan (TSP)?
•
Plan Purpose and Goals
•
Plan Process
•
Public Engagement
•
Q & A
D-35
Virtual Community Meeting | February 27, 2025
Your Participation is Appreciated!
This webinar is being
recorded and will be posted
on the TSP website.
Participant camera and
speaking audio have been
disabled.
Polls will automatically
appear on your screen.
Please respond! Your input
is important. Poll results
will be shared with everyone.
Ask questions using
the Q&A button.
Everyone will be able
to see Q&A questions
and responses.
Spanish interpretation is
available for this meeting.
Please use the
interpretation to select the
Spanish channel.
D-36
Virtual Community Meeting | February 27, 2025
Transportation Safety Plan
Team
D-37
Virtual Community Meeting | February 27, 2025
TSP Team
Craig Sharp
Buckeye Project
Manager
John Willett
Acting Transportation
Director
Alex Albert
Public Engagement
Lead
Jeremy Labenski
Y2K Deputy
Project Manager
Yung Koprowski
Y2K Project
Manager
D-38
Virtual Community Meeting | February 27, 2025
What is a Transportation
Safety Plan?
D-39
Virtual Community Meeting | February 27, 2025
Transportation Safety Plan
•
Safe Streets and Roads for All
(SS4A)
•
SS4A grants aim to improve
roadway safety by significantly
reducing or eliminating roadway
fatalities and severe injuries
through safety action plan
development and implementation.
•
$600,000 grant award to develop
plan with $150,000 City match
D-40
Virtual Community Meeting | February 27, 2025
Transportation Safety Plan
… focused on all users, including
pedestrians, bicyclists, public
transportation users, motorists,
personal conveyance and micro-
mobility users and commercial
vehicle operators.
Personal conveyance and micro-mobility refer to
small, lightweight, low-speed vehicles, such as
skateboards and scooters.
D-41
Virtual Community Meeting | February 27, 2025
Buckeye Planning Area
•
Based on the City of Buckeye roads and
streets which does NOT include the main
lanes or ramps on Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT) freeways such as
Interstate 10 and Loop 303 and Maricopa
County (SR) 85.
•
Includes roads and streets within county
islands and crashes within 200 feet of City
boundary.
•
Items on map are landmarks for
orientation, not focus areas.
•
Focus areas will be determined by data
analysis and community input.
D-42
Virtual Community Meeting | February 27, 2025
Buckeye Planning Area
D-43
Virtual Community Meeting | February 27, 2025
Plan Purpose and Goals
D-44
Virtual Community Meeting | February 27, 2025
The City has several reasons for developing the
TSP.
Identify road safety issues
Set up an interdepartmental task force
Identify projects eligible for safety funding
Identify proven, high efficacy safety solutions
Garner leadership support for continued
investment/support
Purpose
D-45
Virtual Community Meeting | February 27, 2025
Total Injury Crashes (2019-2023):
Fatal & Serious Injury Crashes (2019-2023):
Total Crashes
1,174
151
Pedestrian
40
15
Bicycle
24
8
Motorcycle
84
36
59% of fatal and serious injury
crashes in Buckeye were
intersection-related.
Over 27% of these intersection-
related collisions occurred at a
traffic signal.
Crash Facts*
*Crash data shown here includes City of
Buckeye and Maricopa County highways,
roads and streets.
Total Injury Crashes
Severe Crashes
68%
29%
3%
Buckeye
MCDOT
Shared
53%
43%
4%
Buckeye
MCDOT
Shared
Roadway Ownership
D-46
Virtual Community Meeting | February 27, 2025
Vulnerable road users
(pedestrians, bicyclists
and motorcyclists) are
involved in 38% of
Buckeye's fatal and serious
injury crashes.
32% of fatal and serious
injury crashes in Buckeye
involved a speeding
violation.
25% of fatal and serious injury
crashes in Buckeye involved
drugs or alcohol.
28% of fatal and serious injury
crashes in Buckeye involved a
driver under the age of 25.
24% involved unrestrained
driver (no seatbelt, etc.)
Crash Facts
D-47
Virtual Community Meeting | February 27, 2025
The most common severe crash type is single
vehicle (41 crashes, 27%). Of those crashes, 56% of
those involved crashes with a fixed object.
Heat Map of Severe Crashes
Crash Facts
56%
34%
10%
Fixed Object
Overturn/Rollover
Other
D-48
Virtual Community Meeting | February 27, 2025
TSP Goals
Collaborate with residents and businesses to ensure
the plan reflects community needs and priorities.
Analyze crash data to identify patterns and
understand contributing factors.
Develop proactive strategies to reduce serious injury
and fatal crashes and improve safety for all road
users.
D-49
Virtual Community Meeting | February 27, 2025
Plan Process
D-50
Virtual Community Meeting | February 27, 2025
COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT
JANUARY
PLAN
DEVELOPMENT
BEGAN
JANUARY - MARCH
DATA GATHERING
MARCH - MAY
RESEARCH EFFECTIVE
COUNTERMEASURES
MAY - SEPTEMBER
PRIORITIZE COUNTERMEASURES AND
DEVELOP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
OCTOBER - JANUARY
DRAFT TRANSPORTATION
SAFETY PLAN
FEBRUARY - MARCH
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
2025
SUBMIT
IMPLEMENTATION GRANT
APPLICATION
Schedule
D-51
Virtual Community Meeting | February 27, 2025
Public Engagement
D-52
Virtual Community Meeting | February 27, 2025
Public Engagement
Understand community
demographics and include a
diverse blend of voices.
Build durable
community
relationshipsby
engagingpeople early
and often.
Be clear and
transparent. Listen,
then act.
Use community preferred
engagement techniques
and report back.
Maintain
effectiveness of
Public
Engagement
Plan.
Document and
maintain a
record of all
communication
received
throughout the
project.
SCAN ME!
Buckeyeaz.gov/safestreets
D-53
Virtual Community Meeting | February 27, 2025
Elements
Please Join the
Mailing List!
D-54
Virtual Community Meeting | February 27, 2025
Questions & Answers
D-55
Virtual Community Meeting | February 27, 2025
Thank you for participating!
COBTraffic@buckeyeaz.gov
(623) 349-6000
buckeyeaz.gov/safestreets
D-56
34
Appendix K – Virtual Community Meeting Transcript
D-57
Buckeye TSP Virtual Community Meeting
Recorded by Yung Koprowski, 2/27/2025, 5:10:30 PM
Q&A Transcript
iPhone 13 Pro Max (7) - Joanne Robbins
43:29
In housing developments such as Sundance or Verrado, every square inch is allocated to
building lots and the streets are very narrow. When vehicles are parked on both sides of the
street, it becomes a one-lane road. A resident now becomes liable pulling into traffic on a
crowded street with little to no visibility. Cause an accident, injury, or death to an animal,
child, or themselves because homeowners choose to park on the street. When you sell a
house with a two-car garage and a two-car driveway. And the occupants choose to use it for
storage. And park their vehicles on the road, it is now becoming a hazard to anyone driving on
that road. It's also going to become a problem with the garbage pickup with two barrels on the
same day.
If there is no space in front of your home to accommodate with overnight parking, Buckeye
needs to impose a citywide ban on overnight parking in housing communities. We need better
zoning laws in the future to allocate for wider streets or overflow parking areas. We've called
the police. They say call HOA. HOA says call City Hall. It's very hard to feel safe when your
streets are lined with cars. Children are playing and riding electric scooters up and down the
street. Large Amazon or FedEx trucks are trying to park. If a homeowner chooses to use their
garage as storage, it makes no sense that they can impose on neighbors by parking on the
street. There should be fines and cars should be towed.
Alexandra Albert
44:56
Thank you so much for your question. I'm going to go ahead and turn that over to Yung so she can
respond.
iPhone 13 Pro Max (7)
45:02
Okay.
Yung Koprowski
45:04
Thank you for your question. We understand the issue that you described and we will take that into
consideration during this plan development so that we can determine what solutions the city can
take moving forward to help address that issue.
D-58
Alexandra Albert
45:31
Thank you very much. All right, we have another question. So the question here is, “I know how the
roads get built by developers, but some on the call may not. Can that be explained?”
Yung Koprowski
45:53
I would like to phone a friend.
John Willett
46:02
Thank you, Yung. Yeah, this is John Willett, the Acting Transportation Director. So you are correct,
whoever made the comment. Buckeye has a policy that as developments come into play they are
responsible for building the half of the road that their development fronts. If they're on both sides of
a road they're responsible for building all the road. So that's kind of how the roads are built.
We do understand as the city moves forward, there are sections of the city where development
homes were already there. They've been there for a long time. So that section of the road will have
to be built by the city at some time in the future but generally when the developer comes in, they
build their half the road. And it just unfortunately takes awhile when developers leapfrog over each
other to fully fill in the gaps. So hopefully I helped explain that a little bit. And if you have any
questions ask again and we'll provide more information. Thank you.
Alexandra Albert
47:07
Thank you, Yung and John. All right. The next question we have is “After many accidents and daily
racing incidents on Verrado Way between Main Street and Sunrise Lane, I'm wondering about
speed bumps as a solution.”
Yung Koprowski
47:27
Thank you for your comments and your thoughts on this issue. As we move through the plan, we will
be evaluating those types of issues, including speeding. While on major arterial roads speed bumps
themselves are not a solution. There are many other solutions that the city will evaluate and
determine whether they can be implemented in the future.
Alexandra Albert
48:00
Thanks again, Yung. And one of the things I wanted to mention is that one of those things that we
had on the presentation. Alan, would you mind going back to the schedule slide? On the schedule
D-59
slide, you'll see that there are three specific places where we'll be doing public engagement. That'll
be a really big part. And when we're drafting the transportation safety plan is when we'll be looking
at the countermeasures and putting those into the plan. So as you see us out in the community and
as you answer surveys or go on the website, let us know if you support certain countermeasures or
if you don't support them. That's very important information for us. And if you stay in the
conversation, we'll definitely be talking about that as we engage with the public through the
process. Thank you.
We have another question. “Will there be a look at adding more bike lanes?”
Yung Koprowski
49:09
That is certainly a potential solution depending on the feedback that we get from the
community. And also based on the risk analysis that we will be conducting as part of this plan.
I do want to add that This is the listening stage. This is the discovery phase of the project. So I really
appreciate everyone's comments and insights into the issues that you're seeing. Those are exactly
the type of things that we want to hear at this stage. If you could go to the website that Alex
mentioned earlier and take the entire survey, there is also a map included in that survey. So if you
have specific locations where you feel that bike lanes would be beneficial to be added or there's a
need for them in certain areas.
For the person before that mentioned speeding in a certain area, put those markers on the map
because that will be really important for us to document and continue to see. Others in the
community will see your map marker and they can also contribute and upvote on those comments.
Alexandra Albert
50:29
Thank you, Yung. I did include the URL again in the chat. So for anyone who didn't hear before, you
can find all the information and the link to the survey and the map marker activity at
buckeyaz.gov/safestreets. Okay, we'll go on to our next question now. We have a question about
general obligation bonds or GO bonds. “Are the GO bonds voted on last November being looked
at for any of the funding?”
John Willett
51:05
So this is John again. The GO bonds that were approved last November are not specifically oriented
towards this transportation safety plan. However, with that being said. With the improvements that
we will be constructing as part of the GO bond, if there's recommendations out of the
transportation safety plan that - for example, bike lanes should be placed on roads or additional
pedestrian lighting - those roadway segments that would be covered by the go bond could help fund
those improvements. So specifically, no safety projects have been identified to be covered by the
GO bond funding.
D-60
Alexandra Albert
51:55
Thank you, John. All right, the meeting chat got very quiet. Does anyone else have any questions out
there? Okay. Just go through a couple reminders then. We do have this meeting being recorded. The
recording will be put up on the website, buckeyeaz.gov/safe streets. We very much appreciate if you
would share that information with anyone that you think would find it useful and we're very, very
grateful for your participation in this important plan that is set to make your roads and streets safer.
Still available for any questions, but I don't see any.
John Willett
52:47
So this is John again real quick, just kind of want to reiterate what Yung mentioned is we're trying to
gather everything today. And if many of you have heard of me talk in public meetings, Town halls,
P&Z we want to hear what you have to talk about because we cannot drive everywhere. I don't ride a
bike, so I don't know where bike lanes may or may not be needed throughout the city. So please
share with us. I don't walk every road. I don't have children that go to school in Buckeye, so I don't
know where a safety concern around a school may or may not exist. We have had several safe
routes to schools studies done around the city but we haven't covered every school so far. I can't
drive every community, neither can the folks that work for me. We don't see things. We listen.
Please let us know so that we can incorporate that into this plan and so we have something going
forward. And so that's why we're reaching out. Because you all know what is important to you. You
walk in community X that has a sidewalk on one side of the road or only half the road's been built.
There needs to be another half of the road built and a sidewalk or the sidewalk just ends and kids or
people can't get to X. I don't know what X is. Whatever X is. We need to know those things. Or else
it's hard for us to put those on a priority to get done quickly. And as opposed to waiting for when
developer “Bob” comes in and builds his half the road, like it was mentioned earlier.
So please… share with us your thoughts. No comment or suggestion is unnecessary. They are all
necessary That's how we know what you all would like to see so we can somehow get it
incorporated into this transportation safety plan. Because I'm telling you right now, I do not like
hearing of a crash…that we lost somebody. Nothing irritates me more. Or someone just got hurt
some other way. So please just share with us any comments or thoughts you have. We'll
incorporate them. We'll look at them. As Yung said, we're in the data gathering phase right now so
kind of everything's on the table I'll stop rambling because I have a tendency to do that. So thank
you.
Alexandra Albert
55:28
Thank you, John. Appreciate your thoughts on all of that and your your request for more
engagement. I did find another question, didn't come through the Q&A, but we have it here “Is the
$600,000 grant going to be rescinded like so many others under this administration?” A
secondary question is “How far will this grant go in terms of making any changes?”
D-61
Yung Koprowski
55:56
Yeah, those are good questions. This grant has been put under contract. And so this plan
development and the monies towards this plan are absolutely moving forward. While future monies
potentially under a federal program for implementation is uncertain at this time, we are very
confident that regardless of the future status of funding that this plan can make a difference in the
community because it will provide the city of Buckeye a roadmap for reducing and eliminating
serious injury and fatal crashes. Much of this is actually very timely for the city as it is growing. It
can incorporate those best practices right into their standards, their guidance. The city can start
really looking at their network development from that safety-first lens. So the monies from the grant
awarded will do just that, prepare this transportation safety plan and community engagement for
the plan this year and next.
In terms of implementing those safety solutions, as John mentioned earlier, those safety solutions
can be integrated into any infrastructure project that will be built in the future, regardless of the
funding, they can take those recommendations and put it into the design and construction of those
projects. We also hope to influence design standards so that when developers come in and build
those half streets they will also be integrating those safety solutions into those roadways. So even if
there isn't separate dedicated funding available in the future, the city of Buckeye has many options
available to them in the future to advance these safety strategies.
Alexandra Albert
58:05
Excellent. Thank you. The next question I have is a little bit longer. “Road street markings are
horrible between Durango and Lower Buckeye. What is the timeline to finish Miller in that
area? I have seen many vehicles swerve and almost cause accidents due to old street
markings and old turn lane markings that show. It is very hard to tell lane markings, especially
at dusk and dawn times.”
John Willett
58:34
Yes, this is John again. The construction project that's going to improve Miller between Lower
Buckeye and basically Pima. It just started. I can't tell you the day that the work will be finished. We
had a challenge waiting for some of the utilities on the east side to be relocated so the power poles
can move. So technically the work should have almost been mostly finished by now but they just
started the work. I don't know their schedule, what side they're working on. I understand they're
moving some traffic, I think next week to the southbound lanes which is where that confusing
striping is. And they're going to use vertical panels and such to help guide traffic. So those devices
will help out. But yes, we're aware of the striping and it should have been done a year and a half ago
but project delays just held up the design being finished and getting to construction but the
improvements are coming soon. I wish I could tell you sooner. But they are coming very quickly.
D-62
Alexandra Albert
59:40
Thank you, John. Right now, I don't see any more questions. Oh, I got another one. Just as I said
that. Great. “For a city this large, only 20 people here is bad. Please tell your neighbors and
other Buckeye residents about this.” Thank you for the plug for public engagement. I really
appreciate it. We really do want to see lots and lots of people on these meetings and out in the
public and we see you coming into the website. I watch those numbers carefully. And it's been very
exciting to see so many people in Buckeye really care about their community. We've gotten a lot of
survey answers. So thank you very much for those of you who did make it a point to be here. We
really appreciate it.
Yung Koprowski
01:00:30
And this webinar is recorded and will be posted on the website so others can view it when it's a time
more convenient to them. But as Alex mentioned, we are still getting a lot of feedback and input
through the survey and the map markers. We can always use more, but we have gotten a lot more
surveys than the attendance today.
Alexandra Albert
01:00:52
Thank you. All right. We've got another question coming up. “How will pedestrians get from
Verrado to the new Target or Costco since there are no crosswalks?”
John Willett
01:01:12
I'm not sure the question entirely, but there are sidewalks on both sides of Verrado that go across
the freeway down to the signal that allows you to get to the Costco. I think you can cross the
freeway at the interchange. You can also cross Verrado at the Roosevelt signal. Same with that
target. The traffic signal will be coming in at the intersection of Market Street. And then there'll also
be a traffic signal at the future intersection of Acacia And McDowell. So both those signalized
intersections will have crosswalks. So there'll be means to get across the road by the time the
shopping center at the Target is there. And there are means today at the Costco. I'm pretty sure
there are. I guess I don't walk there, so I should verify that but if not, we will work with trying to get
the crosswalks there.
Alexandra Albert
01:02:16
Thank you. Okay, I've got another response. This is great about finding out about the meeting. “I
only found out about this meeting through Facebook. I believe more would have been at this
meeting with more information set out to the community.” Thank you, Debbie. Very much
appreciate that. We will look at all these responses and the poll from earlier and maybe adjust our
D-63
for our next meeting. I'm very glad that you saw it on social media too. And if you see anything on
social media that you think that your friends and neighbors would like, please click and share. Okay.
At this point, the question and answer bar is empty. As is the chat. Any other questions or does
anyone on the team want to emphasize anything.
Yung Koprowski
01:03:25
Alex or John, if people after this meeting have further questions or something comes up. How would
you suggest they reach out, both if it's related to the plan, but also if it's simply related to something
with the city of Buckeye?
Alexandra Albert
01:03:41
Thank you so much, Yung. Okay, we're going to go one slide further. There's one left and we really
hope that you'll take a snapshot of this or a screenshot, whatever it takes to keep in touch with us.
So on this slide, you'll see that the traffic department at the City of Buckeye has an email address
for you, COBtraffic@Buckeyez.gov. There's also a hotline and the website that we've mentioned,
buckeyaz.gov/safestreets. We will provide materials in Spanish as well. If you have folks within your
communities that need that assistance, you can let them know that we have that
available. Sometimes it's easier for people even if they speak a little bit of English, to have
something entirely translated. So we're working really hard to make sure that all of our materials are
accessible and understandable. We're most happy to take comments on what you see out in the
roadway of course what your safety concerns are, but also our methods of communicating with you
and the materials that we're presenting. All of that can be done via the Buckeye AZ.gov/SafeStreets,
an email or phone call.
Yung Koprowski
01:04:56
do we need to check the Spanish side for questions?
A
Alexandra Albert
01:04:59
At this point, I don't have any questions in the Q&A. For the chat. We want to be sure to give
everybody plenty of time, though.
Y
Yung Koprowski
01:05:14
D-64
Alex, I'm not sure if there were any individuals that used the Spanish translation that wanted to ask
questions through the interpreter.
A
Alexandra Albert
01:05:23
I haven't heard from him at this point. And I don't believe he has any participants in his room.
01:05:44
Oh, here we go. Oh, we got a nice comment. Thank you so much. Thank you. “Nice job and good
meeting.” And then we did get another one just now. “With all the safety measures being
explored, what role will law enforcement play post-project?” What a great question.
Yung Koprowski
01:06:02
That is a great question. So one of the elements that will be a key objective of this plan is to
establish interdepartmental coordination. And what we meant by that was to have more
coordination between the transportation department and the police department in a formal
manner so that they have regular meetings. Enforcement is absolutely a key strategy in in
supporting safe streets. We can't accomplish everything through engineering countermeasures
alone. It's going to take the community changing behaviors. And education and enforcement to help
deter those risky behaviors.
Alexandra Albert
01:06:47
Thank you. For anyone who has joined the meeting late, please look in the meeting chat. There are
some interesting things for you there. And we'd be happy to take any questions that you have going
through the Q&A. Button on your toolbar please just let us know. I'm also going to put the project
website into the chat again So that we'll have a way to go to a place where you can drop comments
and then find our information.
01:07:30
Okay. At this point, I don't see any other questions. Okay. I think that We've done it. It's entirely up to
the team. They think they'd like to wait a little longer. Ready to take any questions you have.
John Willett
01:08:35
Thank those who did log in today. And provided some comments. And put questions and just listen.
We really appreciate it. Definitely appreciate the comment about getting the word out a little more.
Buckeye has a lot of resources we may have not tapped into all of them. Inadvertently. So we will
D-65
make sure we get the word out a lot better for the next meeting. But as was mentioned, we are
always open to take your comments even when this safety plan is completed.
Were still open. You can contact us anytime with a safety concern you have. Again, thank you all
very much for participating and taking time out of your Thursday evening to listen to us.
Alexandra Albert
01:09:27
Thank you so much, John. And thank you, Yung, for your help with presenting materials. Thank you,
everybody, for your questions. And we sure hope to get to continue the conversation with you as we
develop Buckeye's first transportation safety plan. Have a good evening.
D-66
35
Appendix L – Online Survey Data
D-67
engagey2k
Report Type: Project
Project Name: Buckeye Safe Streets for All
Date Range: 12-11-2024 - 01-04-2025
Exported: 01-04-2025 15:11:52
Performance Summary
Information regarding key visitation and utilisation metrics for your Site or projects.
1,278
Views
1,137
Visits
952
Visitors
1,105
Contributions
571
Contributors
0
Followers
Views - The number of times a Visitor views any page on a Site.
Visits - The number of end-user sessions associated with a single Visitor.
Visitors - The number of unique public or end-users to a Site. A Visitor is only counted once, even if they visit a Site several times in one day.
Contributions - The total number of responses or feedback collected through the participation tools.
Contributors - The unique number of Visitors who have left feedback or Contributions on a Site through the participation tools.
Followers - The number of Visitors who have ‘subscribed’ to a project using the ‘Follow’ button.
Conversions
Information regarding how well your engagement websites converted Visitors to perform defined key actions.
Feedback
Percentage of visits where at least 1
contribution was made.
Attention
Percentage of visits that lasted at least 1
active minute.
Actions
Percentage of visits where at least 2 actions
were performed.
engagey2k - Project Report (12 Nov 2024 to 01 Apr 2025)
Page 1 of 5
D-68
Participation
Information regarding how people have participated in your projects and activities.
Contributions by Activity
Contributions by Activity is a breakdown of contributions across each tool
Activity
Contributions
%
Form
679
61.45%
Social Map
426
38.55%
Top Activities
Top Activities is the top 5 tools that received the highest contributions
Activity
Page Name
Contributions
Contributors
Form
Buckeye Safe Streets for All
679
556
Social Map
Buckeye Safe Streets for All
426
193
Visioner Input
Buckeye Safe Streets for All
0
0
Forum
Buckeye Safe Streets for All
0
0
Form
Join the Mailing List
0
0
Projects
The current number of published projects on your site
Engagement Time
4
3
37
Days
Hours
Minutes
Jan 31st 2025
Peak Visitation
Date
Friday
Peak Visitation Day
Top Visited Pages
Summary information for the top five most visited Pages.
Page Name
Visitation %
Visits
Visitors
Buckeye Safe Streets for All
99.74%
1,134
952
Join the Mailing List
0.26%
3
2
engagey2k - Project Report (12 Nov 2024 to 01 Apr 2025)
Page 2 of 5
D-69
People
Information regarding who has participated in your projects and activities.
Follower Activity
Information regarding the activity of registered Members who have 'followed' or subscribed to one or more projects.
0
Total Followers
0
New Followers
0
Total Follows
0
New Follows
Total Followers - The number of unique Members who have 'followed' at least one project.
New Followers - The number of new unique Members who have 'followed' at least one project within the specified reporting date range.
Total Follows - The number of total 'follows' performed by all Followers across all projects. Each Follower may record multiple Follows.
New Follows - The number of new total 'follows' performed by all Members across all projects within the specified reporting date range.
Visitor Profile
Visitor Profile is a comparison between new visitor and returning over the selected period
First Time - The number of Visitors that are visiting a Site for the first time within the reporting date range.
Returning - The number of Visitors that have made more than one Visit to a Site within the reporting date range.
•
1st Time: 943 - 99.05%
•
Returning: 9 - 0.95%
engagey2k - Project Report (12 Nov 2024 to 01 Apr 2025)
Page 3 of 5
D-70
Acquisition
Information regarding the method by which Visitors arrived to your Site or projects.
Referral Types
Referral traffic is the segment of traffic that arrives on your website through another source, like through a link on another domain.
Direct - Visitors who have arrived at a Site by entering the exact web address or URL of the page.
Search Engine - Visitors who have arrived at a Site via a search engine. Such as Google, Yahoo, etc.
Websites - Visitors who have arrived at the Site after clicking a link located on an external website.
Social Media - Visitors who have arrived at a Site by clicking a link from a known social media site such as Facebook, X, LinkedIn, etc.
Campaigns - Visitors who have arrived through a campaign (using a UTM). See your email campaign report for more details on campaigns sent from this
platform.
•
Websites: 453 - 46.60%
•
Direct: 367 - 37.76%
•
Social Media: 119 - 12.24%
•
Search Engine: 28 - 2.88%
•
Campaigns: 5 - 0.51%
engagey2k - Project Report (12 Nov 2024 to 01 Apr 2025)
Page 4 of 5
D-71
Downloads
Information regarding your downloads, the total set of unique documents downloaded, total downloads of all files, and your top downloads.
0
Total Downloads
No Data Available
Email Campaigns
Information regarding your email campaigns, your total campaigns, the total number of recipients, and your top campaigns by click-through
rate (clicks as a percentage of total recipients).
0
Email Campaigns Sent
0
Total Recipients
0%
Click-through Rate
No Data Available
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
engagey2k - Project Report (12 Nov 2024 to 01 Apr 2025)
Page 5 of 5
D-72
engagey2k
Report Type: Form Results Overview
Date Range: 22-01-2025 - 25-03-2025
Exported: 01-04-2025 15:20:36
Closed
Buckeye Transportation Safety Plan - Phase 1 Survey
Buckeye Safe Streets for All
556
Contributors
679
Contributions
Key Statistics
Information regarding the split of contributors and contributions between Members and non-Members.
1 (0.2%)
Member contributors
555 (99.8%)
Anonymous contributors
11 (1.6%)
Member contributions
668 (98.4%)
Anonymous contributions
Contribution Activity
Information regarding the contribution activity of Member and anonymous contributors over time.
Technology
Information relating to the types of technology used by your participants in the engagement activity.
Device type
Information showing what devices were used by participants in the
engagement activity.
Browsers
Information showing what web browsers versions were used by
participants in the engagement activity.
engagey2k - Form Results Overview (22 Jan 2025 to 25 Mar 2025)
Page 1 of 3
D-73
Member Demographics
Information regarding the demographic characteristics of the Members who have participated in your engagement activities.
Member Gender
Data showing the gender breakdown of Members who have participated
in your engagement activities. This graph shows any potential gender bias
you may have in your results.
Member Age
Data showing the age distribution of Members who have participated in
your engagement activities. This graph shows any potential age bias you
may have in your results.
Member Gender by Age
Data showing the age and gender of Members who have participated in your engagement activities. This graph shows any potential gender or age bias you
may have in your results.
engagey2k - Form Results Overview (22 Jan 2025 to 25 Mar 2025)
Page 2 of 3
D-74
Member Locations
Information regarding the geographic location (e.g. postcode) of Members who have contributed to your engagement activity.
Member Map
Map showing the location of Members who have contributed to your engagement activity.
No Data Available
Member Contributions by Location
Information regarding the location of Members who have made contributions in your engagement activity.
No Data Available
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
engagey2k - Form Results Overview (22 Jan 2025 to 25 Mar 2025)
Page 3 of 3
D-75
engagey2k
Report Type: Form Results Summary
Date Range: 22-01-2025 - 25-03-2025
Exported: 01-04-2025 15:19:51
Closed
Buckeye Transportation Safety Plan - Phase 1 Survey
Buckeye Safe Streets for All
556
Contributors
679
Contributions
Contribution Summary
1. Thinking of your experience traveling in Buckeye, do you agree that Buckeye streets are safe?
Multi Choice | Skipped: 15 | Answered: 664 (97.8%)
Answer choices
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
2.26%
15
Agree
27.26%
181
Neutral
26.96%
179
Disagree
32.68%
217
Strongly Disagree
11.75%
78
engagey2k - Form Results Summary (22 Jan 2025 to 25 Mar 2025)
Page 1 of 19
D-76
2. Which areas are of greatest safety concern to you? Rank the following areas in order from most concerning
to least concerning.
Ranking | Skipped: 67 | Answered: 612 (90.1%)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Coun
t
Scor
e
Avg
Rank
Inter
secti
ons
56.79
%
301
20.19
%
107
10.57
%
56
5.85
%
31
3.02
%
16
1.70
%
9
0.94
%
5
0.75
%
4
0.19
%
1
0%
0
530
7.86
1.92
Cross
walks
11.22
%
44
16.84
%
66
10.46
%
41
14.80
%
58
17.09
%
67
14.80
%
58
8.16
%
32
4.59
%
18
1.53
%
6
0.51
%
2
392
4.34
4.22
Main
Road
s
20.34
%
95
31.26
%
146
17.13
%
80
9.42
%
44
6.42
%
30
6.42
%
30
3.85
%
18
2.78
%
13
2.14
%
10
0.21
%
1
467
6.00
3.13
Local
Stree
ts
13.09
%
58
18.06
%
80
23.93
%
106
14.90
%
66
11.06
%
49
7.67
%
34
6.55
%
29
2.93
%
13
1.81
%
8
0%
0
443
5.30
3.67
Turn
Lane
s
3.95
%
16
14.07
%
57
20.99
%
85
19.51
%
79
13.33
%
54
13.09
%
53
8.64
%
35
4.94
%
20
1.48
%
6
0%
0
405
4.42
4.32
Side
2.75
8.26
7.44
9.09
9.09
14.05
20.11
18.73
10.19
0.28
363
3.01
5.93
engagey2k - Form Results Summary (22 Jan 2025 to 25 Mar 2025)
Page 2 of 19
D-77
walks
%
10
%
30
%
27
%
33
%
33
%
51
%
73
%
68
%
37
%
1
Bike
Lane
s
5.99
%
22
6.54
%
24
10.08
%
37
9.26
%
34
8.99
%
33
10.08
%
37
15.80
%
58
21.25
%
78
11.17
%
41
0.82
%
3
367
3.11
5.81
Drive
ways
0.92
%
3
0.92
%
3
2.45
%
8
4.59
%
15
3.06
%
10
7.95
%
26
12.23
%
40
18.96
%
62
43.73
%
143
5.20
%
17
327
1.74
7.74
Scho
ol
Traffi
c
8.48
%
34
9.48
%
38
14.96
%
60
12.72
%
51
16.96
%
68
9.48
%
38
7.23
%
29
8.23
%
33
11.47
%
46
1.00
%
4
401
3.97
4.95
Othe
r - Fill
In on
Next
Ques
tion
24.37
%
29
14.29
%
17
13.45
%
16
6.72
%
8
7.56
%
9
1.68
%
2
2.52
%
3
1.68
%
2
1.68
%
2
26.05
%
31
119
1.22
4.75
Score - Sum of the weight of each ranked position, multiplied by the response count for the position choice, divided by the total contributions. Weights
are inverse to ranked positions.
Avg Rank - Sum of the ranked position of the choice, multiplied by the response count for the position choice, divided by the total 'Count' of the choice.
engagey2k - Form Results Summary (22 Jan 2025 to 25 Mar 2025)
Page 3 of 19
D-78
3. If you entered "other" for the previous question, please explain.
Short Text | Skipped: 549 | Answered: 130 (19.1%)
Sentiment
Positive
0% (0)
Mixed
0% (0)
Negative
1% (1)
Neutral
1% (1)
Unclassified
98% (128)
Tags
Tag
Percent
Count
stop sign
16%
21
signal
13%
17
Intersection
12%
15
speeding
9%
12
lighting
7%
9
design
6%
8
Congestion
5%
7
striping
5%
6
Development
5%
6
Add lanes
4%
5
Freight
4%
5
enforcement
3%
4
School
3%
4
sidewalk
3%
4
street parking
2%
3
Merge lane
2%
3
engagey2k - Form Results Summary (22 Jan 2025 to 25 Mar 2025)
Page 4 of 19
D-79
Maintenance
2%
2
Construction
2%
2
Visibility
2%
2
transit
1%
1
Bicycling
1%
1
pedestrians
1%
1
Noise
1%
1
access
1%
1
distracted driving
1%
1
education
1%
1
Reckless
1%
1
Roundabout
1%
1
Reckless driving
1%
1
Turn lane
1%
1
Paving
1%
1
Featured Contributions
No featured contributions
engagey2k - Form Results Summary (22 Jan 2025 to 25 Mar 2025)
Page 5 of 19
D-80
4. Which behaviors are of greatest safety concern to you? Rank the following behaviors in order from most
concerning to least concerning.
Ranking | Skipped: 72 | Answered: 607 (89.4%)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Coun
t
Scor
e
Avg
Rank
Drive
rs Ru
nnin
g a
Red
Light
or
Failin
g to
Yield
46.73
%
236
22.18
%
112
13.66
%
69
8.51
%
43
4.95
%
25
2.18
%
11
1.19
%
6
0.40
%
2
0.20
%
1
0%
0
505
7.34
2.17
Jaywa
lking
or Di
stract
ed Pe
destri
ans
4.15
%
14
5.93
%
20
7.42
%
25
8.61
%
29
12.17
%
41
16.62
%
56
16.32
%
55
16.32
%
55
12.17
%
41
0.30
%
1
337
2.83
5.91
Spee
ding
34.64
%
185
36.14
%
193
12.36
%
66
6.18
%
33
4.49
%
24
2.25
%
12
1.69
%
9
1.50
%
8
0.56
%
3
0.19
%
1
534
7.61
2.35
engagey2k - Form Results Summary (22 Jan 2025 to 25 Mar 2025)
Page 6 of 19
D-81
Impai
red
Drivi
ng
6.60
%
25
12.14
%
46
20.05
%
76
23.22
%
88
14.51
%
55
14.78
%
56
4.49
%
17
4.22
%
16
0%
0
0%
0
379
4.31
4.10
Distr
acted
Drivi
ng
14.87
%
73
24.64
%
121
32.38
%
159
17.11
%
84
6.92
%
34
2.04
%
10
1.83
%
9
0.20
%
1
0%
0
0%
0
491
6.54
2.91
Lack
of Se
atbel
t or
Helm
et
Use
0.64
%
2
0.96
%
3
1.28
%
4
2.88
%
9
5.43
%
17
9.27
%
29
23.32
%
73
27.16
%
85
28.12
%
88
0.96
%
3
313
1.84
7.44
Moto
rcycli
sts
Lane
Splitti
ng (w
eavin
g bet
ween
vehicl
es)
2.95
%
11
7.77
%
29
12.33
%
46
12.60
%
47
15.01
%
56
12.60
%
47
16.35
%
61
10.99
%
41
8.85
%
33
0.54
%
2
373
3.42
5.44
Youn
ger
Drive
rs (in
exper
ience
)
and/
or
older
Drive
rs (re
duce
d
visio
n, mo
bility,
cogni
tive)
4.96
%
19
4.96
%
19
10.18
%
39
15.93
%
61
17.75
%
68
15.40
%
59
8.88
%
34
13.32
%
51
7.83
%
30
0.78
%
3
383
3.55
5.37
Wron
g
Way
Drive
rs
2.11
%
7
3.61
%
12
3.92
%
13
7.83
%
26
12.65
%
42
15.96
%
53
14.76
%
49
11.45
%
38
26.51
%
88
1.20
%
4
332
2.42
6.57
Othe
r - Fill
In on
Next
Ques
tion
36.08
%
35
9.28
%
9
11.34
%
11
6.19
%
6
7.22
%
7
6.19
%
6
2.06
%
2
3.09
%
3
0%
0
18.56
%
18
97
1.10
4.11
Score - Sum of the weight of each ranked position, multiplied by the response count for the position choice, divided by the total contributions. Weights
are inverse to ranked positions.
Avg Rank - Sum of the ranked position of the choice, multiplied by the response count for the position choice, divided by the total 'Count' of the choice.
engagey2k - Form Results Summary (22 Jan 2025 to 25 Mar 2025)
Page 7 of 19
D-82
5. If you entered "other" for the previous question, please explain.
Short Text | Skipped: 571 | Answered: 108 (15.9%)
Sentiment
No sentiment data
Tags
Tag
Percent
Count
speeding
18%
19
stop sign
16%
17
Intersection
9%
10
Bicycling
8%
9
Reckless driving
8%
9
signal
6%
7
enforcement
5%
5
sidewalk
5%
5
crosswalk
5%
5
Noise
4%
4
striping
4%
4
lighting
4%
4
design
4%
4
School
4%
4
Congestion
4%
4
Construction
3%
3
pedestrians
3%
3
engagey2k - Form Results Summary (22 Jan 2025 to 25 Mar 2025)
Page 8 of 19
D-83
Development
3%
3
distracted driving
3%
3
Add lanes
2%
2
Maintenance
2%
2
Freight
2%
2
street parking
2%
2
Roundabout
1%
1
Sign
1%
1
Visibility
1%
1
education
1%
1
Motorcycles
1%
1
Speed limit
1%
1
Featured Contributions
No featured contributions
engagey2k - Form Results Summary (22 Jan 2025 to 25 Mar 2025)
Page 9 of 19
D-84
6. Which of the following strategies would you like to see Buckeye implement to enhance safety for
pedestrians, cyclists, public transit users and drivers? Rank the following strategies in order of preference.
Ranking | Skipped: 72 | Answered: 607 (89.4%)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Count
Score
Avg
Rank
Improv
e
design
of road
ways
(includ
es
adding
sidewa
lks and
bike
facilitie
s)
35.16%
160
24.84%
113
15.16%
69
12.97%
59
7.25%
33
2.86%
13
1.10%
5
0.66%
3
455
4.88
2.49
Improv
e main
tenanc
e of ro
adway
s
(includ
es mai
ntainin
g side
walks
and
bike
facilitie
s)
17.22%
72
24.64%
103
22.49%
94
15.07%
63
9.09%
38
8.37%
35
2.63%
11
0.48%
2
418
4.05
3.12
engagey2k - Form Results Summary (22 Jan 2025 to 25 Mar 2025)
Page 10 of 19
D-85
Reduce
speed
limits
10.12%
33
8.90%
29
7.36%
24
6.75%
22
11.35%
37
12.27%
40
19.33%
63
23.93%
78
326
1.97
5.34
Separa
te
modes
of tran
sportat
ion (bic
yclists/
pedest
rians/v
ehicles
)
10.70%
38
11.83%
42
13.80%
49
14.93%
53
13.80%
49
16.62%
59
12.96%
46
5.35%
19
355
2.70
4.38
Improv
e
traffic
signal
operati
ons
21.29%
96
19.51%
88
22.84%
103
14.19%
64
11.53%
52
7.32%
33
2.66%
12
0.67%
3
451
4.38
3.11
Improv
e enfor
cemen
t of
existin
g
traffic
laws
28.15%
123
19.45%
85
13.73%
60
10.76%
47
7.78%
34
10.07%
44
8.70%
38
1.37%
6
437
4.16
3.22
Educat
e on im
provin
g
driver
behavi
or,
such as
reduci
ng
speedi
ng and
proper
usage
of
seatbel
ts
6.00%
21
8.86%
31
9.71%
34
11.14%
39
18.57%
65
12.29%
43
21.43%
75
12.00%
42
350
2.25
5.10
Add
travel
lanes
19.05%
64
20.54%
69
14.88%
50
10.71%
36
5.36%
18
6.25%
21
7.74%
26
15.48%
52
336
2.82
3.90
Score - Sum of the weight of each ranked position, multiplied by the response count for the position choice, divided by the total contributions. Weights
are inverse to ranked positions.
Avg Rank - Sum of the ranked position of the choice, multiplied by the response count for the position choice, divided by the total 'Count' of the choice.
engagey2k - Form Results Summary (22 Jan 2025 to 25 Mar 2025)
Page 11 of 19
D-86
7. What are the most effective ways for you and your family to learn about roadway safety issues in Buckeye?
Please choose two.
Multi Choice | Skipped: 25 | Answered: 654 (96.3%)
Answer choices
Percent
Count
On social media
63.61%
416
An article in a newspaper
12.69%
83
On the radio
6.88%
45
On the television
14.68%
96
On a website
36.85%
241
Through email communications
61.62%
403
Other
7.49%
49
engagey2k - Form Results Summary (22 Jan 2025 to 25 Mar 2025)
Page 12 of 19
D-87
8. If you entered "other" for the previous question, please explain.
Short Text | Skipped: 636 | Answered: 43 (6.3%)
Sentiment
Positive
0% (0)
Mixed
0% (0)
Negative
0% (0)
Neutral
2% (1)
Unclassified
98% (42)
Tags
Tag
Percent
Count
USPS
21%
9
education
12%
5
Buckeye Magazine
12%
5
Text
12%
5
enforcement
5%
2
Add lanes
2%
1
Electronic Sign
2%
1
Reckless driving
2%
1
street parking
2%
1
Notification Sign
2%
1
Phone Call
2%
1
PSA
2%
1
Featured Contributions
No featured contributions
engagey2k - Form Results Summary (22 Jan 2025 to 25 Mar 2025)
Page 13 of 19
D-88
9. What is your home zip code?
Short Text | Skipped: 10 | Answered: 669 (98.5%)
Sentiment
Positive
0% (0)
Mixed
0% (0)
Negative
0% (0)
Neutral
1% (6)
Unclassified
99% (663)
Tags
No tag data
Featured Contributions
No featured contributions
engagey2k - Form Results Summary (22 Jan 2025 to 25 Mar 2025)
Page 14 of 19
D-89
10. What is your work or school zip code?
Short Text | Skipped: 139 | Answered: 540 (79.5%)
Sentiment
Positive
0% (0)
Mixed
0% (0)
Negative
0% (0)
Neutral
1% (4)
Unclassified
99% (536)
Tags
No tag data
Featured Contributions
No featured contributions
engagey2k - Form Results Summary (22 Jan 2025 to 25 Mar 2025)
Page 15 of 19
D-90
11. Do you provide care for school-age children?
Select Box | Skipped: 63 | Answered: 616 (90.7%)
Answer choices
Percent
Count
Yes
31.17%
192
No
68.83%
424
Total
100.00%
616
engagey2k - Form Results Summary (22 Jan 2025 to 25 Mar 2025)
Page 16 of 19
D-91
12. What is your email address? (Optional)
Short Text | Skipped: 412 | Answered: 267 (39.3%)
Sentiment
Positive
0% (0)
Mixed
0% (0)
Negative
0% (0)
Neutral
0% (1)
Unclassified
100% (266)
Tags
No tag data
Featured Contributions
No featured contributions
engagey2k - Form Results Summary (22 Jan 2025 to 25 Mar 2025)
Page 17 of 19
D-92
13. Do you have additional comments about road safety in Buckeye?
Long Text | Skipped: 292 | Answered: 387 (57%)
Sentiment
Positive
0% (0)
Mixed
0% (0)
Negative
0% (0)
Neutral
2% (8)
Unclassified
98% (379)
Tags
Tag
Percent
Count
signal
19%
74
speeding
18%
71
enforcement
16%
60
School
9%
35
Development
9%
34
design
8%
32
stop sign
8%
31
Bicycling
7%
29
Congestion
7%
27
pedestrians
7%
27
Add lanes
6%
23
Intersection
6%
22
striping
4%
16
sidewalk
4%
16
Maintenance
4%
14
Thank you
3%
13
engagey2k - Form Results Summary (22 Jan 2025 to 25 Mar 2025)
Page 18 of 19
D-93
education
3%
13
Speed limit
3%
13
Construction
3%
12
crosswalk
3%
11
Freight
3%
10
distracted driving
2%
8
transit
2%
8
street parking
2%
6
lighting
2%
6
Roundabout
2%
6
Multimodal
2%
6
access
2%
6
Noise
1%
4
outreach
1%
3
Young
1%
3
wrong way driving
1%
3
Visibility
1%
3
Rural areas
1%
2
DUI
0%
1
Elderly
0%
1
Motorcycles
0%
1
Featured Contributions
No featured contributions
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
engagey2k - Form Results Summary (22 Jan 2025 to 25 Mar 2025)
Page 19 of 19
D-94
engagey2k
Report Type: Social Map Results Overview
Date Range: 22-01-2025 - 19-03-2025
Exported: 01-04-2025 15:13:32
Closed
Map Safety Issues in Buckeye
Buckeye Safe Streets for All
193
Contributors
426
Contributions
Key Statistics
Information regarding the split of contributors and contributions between Members and non-Members.
1 (0.5%)
Member contributors
192 (99.5%)
Anonymous contributors
1 (0.2%)
Member contributions
425 (99.8%)
Anonymous contributions
Contribution Activity
Information regarding the contribution activity of Member and anonymous contributors over time.
Technology
Information relating to the types of technology used by your participants in the engagement activity.
Device type
Information showing what devices were used by participants in the
engagement activity.
Browsers
Information showing what web browsers versions were used by
participants in the engagement activity.
engagey2k - Social Map Results Overview (22 Jan 2025 to 19 Mar 2025)
Page 1 of 3
D-95
Member Demographics
Information regarding the demographic characteristics of the Members who have participated in your engagement activities.
Member Gender
Data showing the gender breakdown of Members who have participated
in your engagement activities. This graph shows any potential gender bias
you may have in your results.
Member Age
Data showing the age distribution of Members who have participated in
your engagement activities. This graph shows any potential age bias you
may have in your results.
Member Gender by Age
Data showing the age and gender of Members who have participated in your engagement activities. This graph shows any potential gender or age bias you
may have in your results.
engagey2k - Social Map Results Overview (22 Jan 2025 to 19 Mar 2025)
Page 2 of 3
D-96
Member Locations
Information regarding the geographic location (e.g. postcode) of Members who have contributed to your engagement activity.
Member Map
Map showing the location of Members who have contributed to your engagement activity.
No Data Available
Member Contributions by Location
Information regarding the location of Members who have made contributions in your engagement activity.
No Data Available
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
engagey2k - Social Map Results Overview (22 Jan 2025 to 19 Mar 2025)
Page 3 of 3
D-97
engagey2k
Report Type: Social Map Results Summary
Date Range: 22-01-2025 - 19-03-2025
Exported: 01-04-2025 15:16:28
Closed
Map Safety Issues in Buckeye
Buckeye Safe Streets for All
193
Contributors
426
Contributions
Key Statistics
Top-level information about the activity.
426
Posts
193 contributors
210
Total Votes
2 avg. votes / post
Map Post Summary
Summary of content contributed by participants including location information, voting results and more.
Posts by Location
Map showing all posts contributed by participants.
Top Contributions by Location
Top 10 most frequent postal/ZIP codes of posts submitted by participants.
Location
Total Contributions
% Contributions
85326, Buckeye, Maricopa County, Arizona, United States
309
72.54%
Sundance, 85326, Buckeye, Maricopa County, Arizona, United States
42
9.86%
Verrado, 85396, Buckeye, Maricopa County, Arizona, United States
24
5.63%
Valencia Heights, 85396, Buckeye, Maricopa County, Arizona, United States
11
2.58%
Tartesso West, 85396, Buckeye, Maricopa County, Arizona, United States
7
1.64%
85396, Litchfield Park, Maricopa County, Arizona, United States
6
1.41%
85396, Surprise, Maricopa County, Arizona, United States
5
1.17%
Sienna Hills, 85396, Buckeye, Maricopa County, Arizona, United States
5
1.17%
Sun City Festival, 85396, Surprise, Maricopa County, Arizona, United States
4
0.94%
Blue Horizons, 85326, Buckeye, Maricopa County, Arizona, United States
2
0.47%
engagey2k - Social Map Results Summary (22 Jan 2025 to 19 Mar 2025)
Page 1 of 4
D-98
Ratings
Summary of voting and rating activity across all posts.
Ratings by Category
A comparison of the voting and rating activity of the categories contributors
selected for their posts.
Posts by Category
Comparison showing the number of posts for each category, as selected by
participants.
engagey2k - Social Map Results Summary (22 Jan 2025 to 19 Mar 2025)
Page 2 of 4
D-99
1. Comment:
Short Text | Skipped: 65 | Answered: 361 (84.7%)
Sentiment
No sentiment data
Tags
Tag
Percent
Count
signal
18%
65
speeding
17%
61
stop sign
12%
44
Design
9%
34
Add lanes
8%
30
striping
5%
19
crosswalk
5%
18
sidewalk
5%
17
Congestion
4%
16
Pedestrians
4%
13
visibility
3%
12
School
3%
12
Reckless driving
3%
11
lighting
3%
10
Bicycling
2%
9
Access
2%
8
enforcement
2%
7
engagey2k - Social Map Results Summary (22 Jan 2025 to 19 Mar 2025)
Page 3 of 4
D-100
roundabout
1%
4
Maintenance
1%
3
speed limit
1%
3
Street parking
1%
2
Freight
1%
2
wrong way driving
0%
1
transit
0%
1
Construction
0%
1
Featured Contributions
No featured contributions
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
engagey2k - Social Map Results Summary (22 Jan 2025 to 19 Mar 2025)
Page 4 of 4
D-101
Page 44
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX E:
POLICY AND PROCESS GAPS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
kimley-horn.com
2046 Riverview Auto Drive, Suite 400 | Mesa, AZ 85201
480.207.2666
MEMORANDUM
To:
Jeremy Labenski, Project Manager – Y2K Engineering
From:
Michael Grandy, PE, RSP1 – Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Date:
September 2, 2025
Subject:
City of Buckeye Policy and Process Gaps and Recommendations
An in-depth review of the City of Buckeye’s key documents related to transportation safety policies and
processes was conducted as part of the City’s Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Transportation
Safety Plan. Proposed recommendations for policies and processes to promote improved traffic safety
performance are documented in the sections below. Recommendations are grouped into three areas:
◼
Policies and processes recommended in previously completed planning documents that
have not yet been implemented by the City.
◼
Recommended updates to existing City policies and processes.
◼
Recommended new policies and processes.
Policies and Processes Recommended in Previously Completed
Planning Documents
A detailed review of the previously completed planning documents was conducted and summarized in
the City of Buckeye Existing Plan Review, dated April 3, 2025. The policies set forth in these documents
were reviewed to determine if they had been implemented. The sections below provide documentation
of the policies that were recommended in previously completed planning documents but have not yet
been implemented.
2040 General Plan
◼
Policy S-3.5 – The City of Buckeye will conduct safety education programs throughout the
community.
⚫
Although this is being done informally through City Hall meetings, it is recommended
that a programmatic approach be implemented to further reinforce safety through
education programs in the community.
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
◼
Strategy 13.5.16 – Ensure trails link to sidewalks to provide access and connection to
proposed pathway/trail corridors.
◼
Strategy 13.5.26 – Ensure trails are properly planned and located based on City path and
trail standards.
E-1
Page 2
kimley-horn.com
2046 Riverview Auto Drive, Suite 400 | Mesa, AZ 85201
480.207.2666
◼
Strategy 13.5.27 – Develop refined standards for grade-separated crossings and those
occurring at intersections that can also serve a dual purpose for wildlife crossings.
◼
Strategy 13.5.30 – Install signage along Buckeye’s paths and trails that are consistent to
an established standard by the City.
◼
Strategy 13.9.16 – Conduct a tree and shade study to develop a standard in providing
shade along streetscapes, right-of-way, parks, and paths and trails.
◼
Strategy 13.9.22 – Incorporate guidelines and standards included in the master plan into
City’s development code.
◼
Strategy 13.9.25 – Prepare design guidelines for parks, trails and open space that can be
provided to developers at pre-application conferences.
⚫
It is recommended that these standards and guidelines referenced in the Parks and
Recreation Master Plan be implemented.
Downtown Buckeye Specific Area Plan
◼
Action 7.3.1 Subtask 1 – Complete a focused update to the City’s Bike and Pedestrian
Master Plan and Engineering Design Standards and Street Cross Sections to show
downtown-specific connections.
◼
Action 7.3.4 Subtask 1 – Update Engineering Design Standards to create downtown-
specific right-of-way design standards to reflect a more urban context in line with the street
sections contained within this Plan. Standards should consider multimodal needs and
design requirements including streetscape elements and support active modes with
consideration for pedestrian scale lighting and shade (see recommended typical sections).
⚫
It is recommended that these standards and guidelines referenced in the Downtown
Buckeye Specific Area Plan be implemented.
Recommended Updates to Existing Policies and Processes
The following recommendations focus on language and text updates to existing City policies and
processes to enhance clarity, consistency, and readability. These adjustments aim to ensure the
content aligns with the City’s safety goals and best practice tone, structure, and grammar. Table 1 lists
the existing City policies and processes reviewed.
Table 1 – City of Buckeye Policies Considered
Plan Name
Date
Access Management Guidelines Technical Memorandum
2020
Buckeye Speed Cushion Policy
2022
Buckeye Engineering Design Standards Chapter 6: Transportation
-
Section 6-1 Transportation Impact Analysis
2012 (with 2020 Amendments)
Section 6-3 Street Planning and Design Criteria
2025
Section 6-4 Transportation Traffic Signals
2024
Section 6-5 Signing and Marking
2024
Section 6-6 Intelligent Transportation Systems
2025
Section 7-1 Street Lighting
2024
E-2
Page 3
kimley-horn.com
2046 Riverview Auto Drive, Suite 400 | Mesa, AZ 85201
480.207.2666
Access Management Guidelines Draft Technical Memorandum
The City of Buckeye's draft Access Management Guidelines provide guidance and design standards
for access spacing requirements, median openings, corner clearances, driveway spacing and shared
accesses. The guidelines define the principles of access management and discuss the safety,
operational, economic, and sustainability benefits. Access management guidelines from local agencies
with similar characteristics are included within the guidance to better understand current industry
policies being implemented.
If the City decides to finalize the access management guidelines document by integrating the guidelines
with the City’s Engineering Design Standards, it is recommended that the following changes (in bold)
be incorporated to further promote safety:
◼
Rephrase the second bullet point under the Policies section on page 2 to “New
developments should provide active transportation facilities, such as pedestrian paths, bike
paths, and trails that safely enhance connectivity between community green spaces and
to regional parks and the Maricopa County trail system for all users.”
◼
Add an additional bullet under the Policies section on page 2 – “At the discretion of the
City Engineer, additional access management may be required to address identified
safety concerns or to be context-sensitive.”
◼
Rephrase the first sentence of Section 2.1 on page 5 to “An effective access management
plan aligns transportation plans, access policies, safety considerations, and design
standards with the design faction of a roadway within the transportation network.”
◼
Rephrase the first sentence on page 6 to “Consistent one-half mile spacing of full access
intersections on major roads that are signalized or have the potential to be signalized
enhances the ability to be coordinated and can help reduce travel time, emissions and fuel
consumption by maintaining safe and efficient speeds.”
◼
Rephrase the third sentence of the section Provide a Supporting Street Network on page
8 to “A well-planned transportation system provides a balanced collector and local street
network to safely and efficiently accommodate site development access needs.”
◼
Rephrase the last sentence of the section Provide Unified Access and Circulation Systems
on page 8 to “Unified circulation systems offer opportunities for better separation of
business access driveways from major signalized intersections and/or interchange ramps,
thereby enhancing safety and operations.”
◼
Rephrase the first sentence of the section Safety Benefits on page 9 to “The safety benefits
of access management are attributable to improved access design, fewer traffic conflict
locations, and increased driver reaction time to potential conflicts.”
◼
Rephrase the second sentence of the first paragraph on page 23 to “Access connection
spacing along higher classification cross streets (arterials and parkways), characterized by
high volumes and high speeds, should facilitate smooth, safe traffic flows with minor
variation of speed and fewer lane changes.”
◼
Consider adding this sentence to the end of the first paragraph of Section 4.2 on page 25,
“When considering full and partial median openings, pedestrian and bicyclist usage
and volumes should also be reviewed.”
E-3
Page 4
kimley-horn.com
2046 Riverview Auto Drive, Suite 400 | Mesa, AZ 85201
480.207.2666
◼
Rephrase the first sentence on page 31 to “Joint and cross access policies promote safe
connections between major developments, as well as between smaller businesses along
a corridor.”
If the City decides not to integrate the access management guidelines with the City’s Engineering
Design Standards, it is recommended that, at a minimum, a standard detail be developed that illustrates
access spacing standards for various roadway classifications.
Buckeye Speed Cushion Policy
The City of Buckeye's Speed Cushion Policy and Procedures outlines the guidelines for the installation
of speed cushions in response to residents' complaints about speeding in local neighborhoods. Speed
cushions aim to mitigate the negative effects of speeding, improve pedestrian conditions, and allow
larger emergency vehicles to pass without impediment. Streets eligible for speed cushions must meet
specific criteria, such as being classified as "Local" or "Major Local" with a posted speed limit of 25 or
30 miles per hour (mph) and showing an average speed exceeding the posted limit by at least six mph.
Additionally, there must be a history of complaints or citations related to speeding. The policy also
details the steps for speed cushion installation, including initial application, evaluation by the City's
Traffic Engineer, and a required petition with signatures from homeowners. The policy aims to ensure
that speed cushions are installed and maintained as per set standards while balancing community
needs and safety concerns.
The following modifications are recommended for consideration by the City of Buckeye:
◼
Add the following after the fourth sentence of the Background section on page 1: “In
response to citizens’ requests, the City of Buckeye proposes a speed cushion policy. To
ensure the safety of all road users, the design and placement of speed cushions will
adhere to best practices that minimize risk to pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers.
Additionally, proper signage and markings will be installed to alert drivers of speed
cushions ahead.”
◼
Add the following after the last sentence of the last paragraph under Policy on page 2:
“When funding is no longer available, City staff will continue to process requests for the
next fiscal year. Eligible candidate locations for speed cushion installation that are
within ¼ mile of schools, parks, or other areas with high pedestrian or bicyclist
activity or that have a history of crashes involving pedestrians or bicyclists should
be given priority for speed cushion installation.”
◼
Add the following after the second sentence of the second bullet under Evaluation on page
2 to “Based on those counts, the Traffic Engineer will perform a speed study to determine,
based on the volume of traffic, average speeds of traffic, and 85th percentile speeds of
traffic, whether the candidate road segment is eligible for speed cushions. The Traffic
Engineer will review the latest five years of crash data and identify if there are any
crashes involving pedestrians or bicyclists.”
◼
Add the following after the fourth sentence of the second bullet under Evaluation on page
2 to “If the summary of calls overwhelmingly indicates a speeding issue, despite the data
concerning volumes, average speed, and 85th percentile speed, the Traffic Engineer may
E-4
Page 5
kimley-horn.com
2046 Riverview Auto Drive, Suite 400 | Mesa, AZ 85201
480.207.2666
determine that the candidate road segment is eligible for speed cushions. A memorandum
summarizing the study will be prepared, considering the safety of all road users.”
◼
Rephrase the first sub-bullet of the third bullet under Determination on page 3 to “City-
funded speed cushions on Local streets with the highest differential between average
speed and posted speed or an identified crash history involving pedestrians or
bicyclists.”
◼
Rephrase the second sub-bullet of the third bullet under Determination on page 3 to “City-
funded speed cushions on Major Local streets with the highest differential between
average speed and posted speed or an identified crash history involving pedestrians
or bicyclists.”
◼
Add the following after the fourth sentence of the Speed Cushion Removal section on page
5: “Upon receipt of a request for the removal of speed cushions supported by 70% of the
homeowners within the original study area, the City Engineer and Public Works Director
shall determine whether the speed cushions should be removed. Safety considerations,
including impacts on traffic speed, pedestrian and bicyclist safety, and emergency
vehicle access, will be evaluated before a determination is made.”
◼
Add the following points to the Speed Cushion Detail:
⚫
“13. INSTALL PROPER SIGNAGE IN ADVANCE OF THE SPEED CUSHION TO
WARN APPROACHING DRIVERS. REFLECTIVE MARKERS AND SIGNS SHOULD
BE USED TO ENHANCE VISIBILITY, ESPECIALLY AT NIGHT.
⚫
14. CONSULT WITH LOCAL EMERGENCY SERVICES TO ENSURE THAT SPEED
CUSHION PLACEMENT DOES NOT IMPEDE EMERGENCY RESPONSE
VEHICLES. PLACEMENT SHOULD ALLOW FOR UNIMPEDED PASSAGE OF FIRE
TRUCKS, AMBULANCES, AND OTHER EMERGENCY VEHICLES.
⚫
15. EVALUATE THE PROPOSED LOCATIONS FOR SPEED CUSHIONS TO
ENSURE THEY DO NOT POSE A HAZARD TO PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS.
CONSIDER PLACING ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE TO ALERT PEDESTRIANS AND
BICYCLISTS TO THE PRESENCE OF SPEED CUSHIONS.
⚫
16. IMPLEMENT A PUBLIC AWARENESS CAMPAIGN TO INFORM RESIDENTS
AND DRIVERS ABOUT THE INSTALLATION OF SPEED CUSHIONS, THEIR
LOCATIONS, AND THE INTENDED SAFETY BENEFITS.
⚫
17. ESTABLISH A SCHEDULE FOR REGULAR MAINTENANCE CHECKS TO
ENSURE THAT SPEED CUSHIONS REMAIN IN GOOD CONDITION. ANY
DAMAGE OR WEAR SHOULD BE PROMPTLY REPAIRED TO MAINTAIN
EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY.”
Buckeye Engineering Design Standards Chapter 6: Transportation
Through a separate contract, Kimley-Horn is doing a comprehensive update of all design standards for
the City of Buckeye. The sections below detail additional recommendations beyond those updates that
are focused on safety.
E-5
Page 6
kimley-horn.com
2046 Riverview Auto Drive, Suite 400 | Mesa, AZ 85201
480.207.2666
Section 6-1: Transportation Impact Analysis
The City of Buckeye's Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) guidelines provide comprehensive requirements for
preparing and submitting TIA reports that evaluate the impact of proposed developments on the City
transportation system. The guidelines state that developers must include detailed projections of future
traffic, analyze the current and future capacity of roadways, and identify necessary mitigation measures
to maintain acceptable levels of service. This involves examining intersections, determining the number
of required lanes, and ensuring signal timing and right-of-way needs are adequately addressed. The
guidelines further outline specific scenarios in which TIAs are mandatory, based on the size and
expected traffic generation of the development.
The following modifications are recommended for consideration by the City of Buckeye:
◼
Rephrase 6-1.001 A to “It is the City’s responsibility to provide an interconnected
transportation system to ensure the safe and efficient movement of people and goods.”
◼
Rephrase 6-1.315 B to “When the analyses indicate that a particular location is projected
to operate at an acceptable level of service and has no safety concerns, no
improvements are required. If, however, deficiencies are recognized, then improvements
in access, geometry, or operations must be investigated. When reasonable improvements
cannot sufficiently accommodate projected traffic, more detailed assessments of project
size, land use, or development phasing may be required.”
Section 6-3: Street Planning and Design Criteria
The City of Buckeye's Street Planning and Design Criteria outlines comprehensive policy and standards
for the construction and modification of streets owned, operated, and maintained by the City. These
criteria cover various aspects, including street classifications, design requirements, intersection design,
street geometry, and final plans preparation. The document establishes guidelines for developers,
landowners, and engineers to ensure all streets within and adjacent to their development meet the
City’s minimum standards for safety, efficiency, and effectiveness. It mandates developers to cover all
necessary on-site and off-site improvements such as drainage, paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks,
signage, striping, and traffic signals, and provides specifics on street classifications ranging from
freeways to local streets, along with the corresponding design details for each classification. The criteria
also outline procedures for plan preparation and submittal to the City for review and approval, ensuring
all street designs and constructions are carefully planned and executed to meet both current and future
needs of the City’s infrastructure.
The following modifications are recommended for consideration by the City of Buckeye:
◼
Rephrase 6-3.001 D. to “This section will also determine or aid with existing intersection
improvement to improve existing safety, delay, or level of service.”
◼
Rephrase 6-3.104 D. to “Opposing traffic flows are physically separated by a raised
median.
◼
Add to 6-3.205 A.3. the normally preferred minimum cross slope value.
E-6
Page 7
kimley-horn.com
2046 Riverview Auto Drive, Suite 400 | Mesa, AZ 85201
480.207.2666
◼
Rephrase 6-3.304 A. to “Horizontal alignments should provide for efficient, safe, and
comfortable operation of motor vehicles at a uniform design speed for substantial lengths
of street.”
◼
Add to 6-3.306 “C. Minimum or greater stopping sight distances should be provided
in all cases. If the proper stopping sight distance is not met, measures such as
clearing vegetation, improving road geometry, or relocating obstructions should be
undertaken to enhance visibility for drivers and ensure safety.”
◼
Rephrase 6-3.312 I.4a. to “The minimum stopping sight distance is the distance required
by the driver of a vehicle, traveling at a given speed, to safely bring the vehicle to a stop
after an object on the road becomes visible. Stopping sight distance is measured from the
driver's eyes, 3.5 feet above the pavement surface, to an object 0.5 feet high on the street,
or currently accepted AASHTO standards.”
Section 6-4: Transportation Traffic Signals
The City of Buckeye's Traffic Signals policy establishes comprehensive engineering design standards
for traffic signals within the City’s public rights-of-way. These standards provide detailed guidelines for
the installation and operation of traffic signals to ensure safety and efficiency. Key requirements include
adherence to national, regional, and local standards, pre-design conferences, traffic signal needs
studies, warrant and operational analyses, and specific design elements for poles, signals, controllers,
and pedestrian devices. Developers are responsible for the costs of traffic signal installations or
modifications required by their developments, and construction must be overseen by certified
personnel. To maintain uniformity and safety, the policy specifies that all traffic signal projects must be
reviewed by the City Engineer and comply with guidelines from sources such as the MUTCD and
AASHTO.
The following modifications are recommended for consideration by the City of Buckeye:
◼
Rephrase 6-4.007 A.4b. to “Protected only left turn phasing shall be required with dual left
turn lanes and should be considered in high pedestrian or bicyclist activity areas or
where there are safety concerns related to left turn movements.”
◼
Rephrase 6-4.102 A. to “For warranted traffic signals, a Traffic Signal Operational Analysis
shall evaluate intersection operations and provide recommendations, including lane
configuration and phasing, that will achieve a minimum level of service (LOS) of D or better
and improve safety at the intersection.”
◼
Rephrase 6-4.102 E.2. to “Protected only left turn phasing should be implemented when
there are sight distance restrictions, and when there is a need for dual left turn lanes, in
high pedestrian activity areas, or if a safety issue arises.”
◼
Add to 6.4.102 “G. Prohibiting right turns on red may be considered in high pedestrian
or bicyclist activity areas or where there are safety concerns related to right turn
movements.”
◼
Add section 6-4.104 Signalized Mid-Block Pedestrian Crossing Treatments
⚫
A. The implementation of signalized mid-block pedestrian crossing treatments
such as Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHB)/High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk
E-7
Page 8
kimley-horn.com
2046 Riverview Auto Drive, Suite 400 | Mesa, AZ 85201
480.207.2666
Beacons (HAWK) shall be justified by a pedestrian crossing needs study and
analysis focused on pedestrian safety, conducted in accordance with MUTCD
guidelines.
⚫
Renumber current section 6-4.104 Approval to 6-4.105 Approval
◼
Rephrase 6-4.218 C to “Pavement marking design at each signalized intersection shall
consist of a new stop bar and new high visibility crosswalk on each approach, unless
otherwise approved by the City Engineer.”
Section 6-5: Signing and Marking
The City of Buckeye's Signing and Marking standards contains comprehensive guidelines for the
design, installation, and maintenance of street signage and pavement markings within the City. These
standards cover both public and private streets. Key requirements include adherence to the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), the Arizona Supplement to the MUTCD, and specifications
by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). The document details specific design criteria,
enforcement procedures, and material requirements, ensuring uniformity and safety across the city’s
roadways. Important aspects include the need for visibility of pavement markings at night, removal of
obsolete markings, and design conformity with MUTCD guidelines. The implementation and ongoing
compliance with these standards aim to guarantee consistent and clear traffic control information,
enhancing road safety and navigability in the City of Buckeye.
The following modifications are recommended for consideration by the City of Buckeye:
◼
Rephrase 6-5.102 S. to “School crossings shall be signed in accordance with ADOT
Guidelines. School warning signs and accompanying placards must be ASTM
proposed Type XI fluorescent yellow green sheeting. Height requirements and sign
locations are pursuant to the MUTCD.”
◼
At the end of 6.5.102, consider adding recommendations for the following sign types:
⚫
Bike Lane Signs
⚫
Pedestrian/Bicycle Crossing Warning Signs
⚫
Yield Signs for Roundabouts
⚫
Railroad Crossings
⚫
No U-Turn Signs
⚫
No Turn on Red Signs
Section 6-6: Intelligent Transportation Systems
The City of Buckeye's Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) policy establishes comprehensive
engineering design standards for ITS infrastructure within the city public rights-of-way. These standards
provide detailed guidelines and requirements for the installation and operation of ITS infrastructure to
ensure safety and efficiency. Key requirements include adherence to national, regional, and local
standards, pre-design conferences, City of Buckeye ITS policies, and specific design elements for
conduits, pull boxes, and fiber optic cabling. Developers are responsible for the costs of ITS
infrastructure installations or modifications required by their developments, and construction must be
overseen by certified personnel.
E-8
Page 9
kimley-horn.com
2046 Riverview Auto Drive, Suite 400 | Mesa, AZ 85201
480.207.2666
The following modifications are recommended for consideration by the City of Buckeye:
◼
Rephrase 6-6.004 A. to “Developers/Landowners and City CIP projects shall verify the
requirements for ITS infrastructure as well as roadway and paving improvements that are
required to provide service to a site considering all users.”
◼
Add to 6-6.006 A. “8. Install ITS infrastructure such that it safely accommodates
pedestrians, bicyclists, and other vulnerable road users.”
◼
Rephrase 6-6.102 C. to “Pull boxes should be designed to avoid exposing any sides or the
lid of the pull box that might be a hazard to traffic, pedestrians, or bicyclists. Pull box lids
should open away from traffic on the downstream side, parallel to the road.”
Section 7-1: Street Lighting
The City of Buckeye's Street Lighting policy establishes comprehensive engineering design standards
for the design, installation, and maintenance of street lighting infrastructure within the city public rights-
of-way. These cover lighting along both public and private roads. Key requirements include adherence
to State Lighting Regulations, City codes, photometric analysis design requirements, pole location
requirements, and specific material requirements for LED luminaires, photocells, and poles. The
document details specific design criteria, enforcement procedures, and material requirements, ensuring
uniformity and safety across the city’s roadways.
The following modifications are recommended for consideration by the City of Buckeye:
◼
Rephrase 7-1.001 C. to “Developers/Landowners shall install, at their expense, all on-site
and off-site street lighting necessary to serve their developments and the motorists,
pedestrians, and bicyclists who will use their developments.”
◼
Add to 7-1.001 “G. The City may require additional street lighting infrastructure in
high pedestrian or bicyclist activity areas if needed to provide adequate lighting.”
◼
Rephrase 7-1.102 K. to “All street lighting designs should follow the photometric
requirements shown in Table 1 to provide ideal lighting conditions. Certain factors and
conditions may allow minor adjustments as approved by the City. Higher light levels should
be considered at signalized mid-block crossings and in areas with increased nighttime
pedestrian activity. Refer to ANSI/IES RP-8 for recommended light levels with medium or
high pedestrian activity.”
◼
Add to 7-1.103 “U. Poles shall not interfere with stopping sight distance.”
◼
Rephrase 7-1.201 H.1. to “Streetlights on local streets shall be located at conflict areas
including but not limited to public street intersections, bus stops, elbows, striped mid-block
crossings, significant curves, cul-de-sacs, hammerheads and other areas as deemed
necessary by City Engineer.”
◼
Rephrase 7-1.201 H. 2. to “Streetlights on collector streets shall be located at conflict areas
including but not limited to public street intersections, bus stops, elbows, striped mid-block
crossings, significant curves, commercial driveways and other areas as deemed necessary
by City Engineer.”
E-9
Page 10
kimley-horn.com
2046 Riverview Auto Drive, Suite 400 | Mesa, AZ 85201
480.207.2666
Recommended New Policies and Processes
This section outlines recommendations for topics that were not covered in the existing policies reviewed
and could be considered in future updates. These strategies can be applied as policies in the future.
Speed Limit Setting and Management
Speeding is a multifaceted issue influenced by road design, driver behavior, public education, and law
enforcement. Speed limit setting and management strategies play a critical role in enhancing road
safety, particularly in densely populated urban environments as vulnerable road users increase. Drivers
typically drive at a speed that feels reasonable for themselves, rather than at speeds that are
necessarily safe for all road users. The severity of injury to a pedestrian is significantly influenced by
the speed of the vehicle at the time of collision. A pedestrian struck by a vehicle traveling 40 mph has
only a 15% likelihood of surviving, whereas a pedestrian struck at 20 mph would have a 95% chance
of surviving.2
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) recommends states and local jurisdictions set appropriate
speed limits to reduce the significant risks drivers impose on others, especially vulnerable road users.
Within the Speed Limit Setting Handbook, guidance is provided for situations that may prompt the need
for an engineering study and discusses the preparation, collection, and process of conducting a study.3
The handbook directs readers to relevant processes and resources for speed management strategies
and offers an overview of geometric design and access techniques to support speed mitigation.
In addition to the Speed Limit Setting Handbook, FHWA also developed USLIMITS2 guidance.4 This
tool is designed to guide setting data-drive, safe, and consistent speed limits for roadways. The tool
considers the following qualitative and quantitative when evaluating a segment of road:
◼
50th percentile speed and 85th percentile speed
◼
Segment length
◼
Average daily traffic
◼
Alignment
◼
Roadway characteristics
◼
Presence of pedestrians, bicyclists, and on-street parking
◼
Number of signals
◼
Number of fatal and serious injury crashes in a designated time period
Evaluating all these elements together establishes speed limits that are consistent with roadway
characteristics but also prioritize the safety and mobility of all users.
The most recent update to the MUTCD (11th Edition) emphasizes a context-sensitive and data-informed
approach to setting speed limits that incorporates factors beyond driver behavior. Importantly, the
updated MUTCD now includes a section underscoring the importance of setting safe and appropriate
speed limits for all road users. The previous editions of the MUTCD did not include this text, resulting
in most agencies using the 85th percentile speed to set speed limits. Section 2B.21 of the new MUTCD
introduces a wide range of contextual factors to be considered such as the roadway environment and
characteristics, crash history, geographic context, and multi-modal use. This section explains that a
E-10
Page 11
kimley-horn.com
2046 Riverview Auto Drive, Suite 400 | Mesa, AZ 85201
480.207.2666
“jurisdiction can use speed limiting tools such as expert systems and those consistent with the safe
system approach as part of the required engineering study for a non-statutory speed limit.” 5
Based on the significant guidance published by FHWA and in the MUTCD on setting and evaluating
networks for appropriate speed limits, the City of Buckeye should consider documented policies for
requesting a speed study, setting speed limits, and implementing speed management strategies.
Positive Left-Turn Lane Offsets
The term “positive offset” for left-turn lanes refers to the practice of aligning turning lanes such that
drivers in opposing vehicles are offset in a positive direction (i.e., away from each other) to create a
clear view for drivers to see oncoming traffic, as illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Positive Left-Turn Offset
Proven Safety Countermeasures, published by FHWA, indicates that positive offset guidance can
enhance safety by improving sight lines and reducing the likelihood of collisions, particularly those
involving left-turning vehicles.6 The Crash Modification Factor (CMF) Clearinghouse provides a left-turn
crash reduction factor of 38%, indicating positive left-turn offset measures statistically reduce crashes
(CMF ID: 6097).7
Several local agencies have recognized the importance of incorporating positive offset into their
planning and design standards and guidelines. High-level concepts are provided by the City of Phoenix
in the Street Planning and Design Manual to assist users with implementing positively offset left-turn
lanes.8 Similarly, the Maricopa Assocation of Governments (MAG), the regional planning agency,
includes the use of positive left-turn offsets in their MAG Left Turn Crash Mitigation Implementation
Template & Guidance.9 The criteria within the guidance for implementation of positive offset considers
directional geometry, crashes, existing offset, and turn type. Other local agencies, such as the Town of
Gilbert, have embarked on a retrofit construction program to create positively offset left-turn lanes
where there have been left-turn crash issues.
Source: MAG Left Turn Crash Mitigation Implementation Template & Guidance
E-11
Page 12
kimley-horn.com
2046 Riverview Auto Drive, Suite 400 | Mesa, AZ 85201
480.207.2666
As other jurisdictions in the state are beginning to adopt this strategy of positively offsetting left-turn
lanes, the City of Buckeye should consider updating its standards to require positively offset left-turn
lanes at unsignalized intersections and signalized intersections with permitted or protected/permitted
left-turn phasing and should invest in retrofitting such intersections that do no currently have positive
left-turn offsets. To achieve a positive left-turn offset, raised medians should be narrower than two feet
and provide “carrot” white striping that guides drivers to position their vehicle close to the median.
Midblock Pedestrian/Bicyclist Crossings
Midblock crossings are pedestrian/bicyclist crossings between intersections rather than at an
intersection. Midblock crossings without proper infrastructure can be dangerous for pedestrians and
bicyclists as drivers may not expect them to cross in the middle of the block, reducing driver reaction
time and increasing the risk of collision. Adding dedicated midblock pedestrian and bicyclist crossings
with proper infrastructure encourages safe crossing behaviors in locations where high foot traffic is
common, long distances between intersections are present, there is a crash history of crashes involving
pedestrians or bicyclists, or near key destinations like schools and parks that tend to generate
pedestrian and bicyclist activity.
Proper midblock crossing treatments included a high-visibility crosswalk paired with warning beacons
such as rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) or signal control such as pedestrian hybrid
beacons (PHBs) and full traffic signals. A raised crosswalk may be appropriate in lower-speed
environments. The proper midblock crossing treatment depends on context such as roadway width,
speed limit, sight distance, crossing volumes, and adjacent land uses. The City of Buckeye should
consider documenting standard requirements for midblock pedestrian crossings based on roadway
usage and characteristics. One potential national document the City of Buckeye could reference is
FHWA’s Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations, which includes a
chart (see Figure 2) indicating what kind of crossing treatment is appropriate for various roadway
configurations, traffic volumes, and vehicle speed limits. 11
Lighting should also be installed at all midblock crossings. FHWA provides guidance to inform traffic
engineers and lighting designers parameters that impact the ability of drivers to see pedestrians in
midblock crosswalks. The vertical illuminance of 20lx at a height of five feet from the road surface was
determined to provide adequate detection distance for most midblock crosswalks.12 The FHWA
guidance provides considerations for selecting supports, placement distances from sidewalks, and
luminary positioning.
E-12
Page 13
kimley-horn.com
2046 Riverview Auto Drive, Suite 400 | Mesa, AZ 85201
480.207.2666
Figure 2: Pedestrian/Bicyclist Crossing Treatments
Source: FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations
E-13
Page 14
kimley-horn.com
2046 Riverview Auto Drive, Suite 400 | Mesa, AZ 85201
480.207.2666
Sources
1.
Highway Safety Manual (HSM). Sec 14.7.2.6. AASHTO, 2010.
2.
Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System, FHWA, 2013,
http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/guide_statistics.cfm
3.
Speed Limit Setting Handbook, FHWA, January 2025,
https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/Speed-Limit-Setting-Handbook.pdf
4.
USLIMITS2: A Tool to Aid Practitioners in Determining Appropriate Speed Limit
Recommendations. FHWA, May 2023, https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/uslimits/
5.
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 11th Edition, Section 2B.21, FHWA,
2023, https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno_11th_Edition.htm
6.
Dedicated Left- and Right-Turn Lanes at Intersections. FHWA, 2021,
https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-countermeasures/dedicated-left-and-right-turn-
lanes-intersections?utm_source=chatgpt.com
7.
Persaud, B., C. Lyon, K. Eccles, N. Lefler, and F. Gross. Safety Evaluation of Offset
Improvements for Left-Turn Lanes. Report No. FHWA-HRT-09-035. FHWA, June 2009,
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?facid=6097
8.
Street Planning and Design Guidelines Manual, City of Phoenix, July 2023,
https://www.phoenix.gov/content/dam/phoenix/streetssite/documents/Phoenix_Street_Planni
ng_Design_Guidelines.pdf
9.
MAG Left Turn Crash Mitigation Implementation Template & Guidance, May 2018, Left Turn
Crash Mitigation Implementation Template and Guidance
10. FHWA Lighting Handbook. FHWA, FHWA Lighting Handbook, 2023,
https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/2023-05/FHWA-Lighting-Handbook_0.pdf
11. Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations. FHWA, July 2018,
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/edc_5/docs/STEP-guide-improving-ped-
safety.pdf
12. Informational Report on Lighting Design for Midblock Crosswalks. FHWA, April 2008,
Informational Report on Lighting Design for Midblock Crosswalks - FHWA-HRT-08-053
E-14
Page 36
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
APPENDIX
APPENDIX F:
PHASE 2 COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
2
Table of Contents
1
Background ................................................................................................................................ 3
2
Message & Materials.................................................................................................................. 4
Safe Streets Start with You ................................................................................................................. 4
Materials ............................................................................................................................................ 4
Flyer/Informational Poster ................................................................................................................. 4
A-Frame Signs..................................................................................................................................... 4
Engagement Boards at Community Touchpoints................................................................................. 4
Social Media ....................................................................................................................................... 5
Email & Newsletter Communications.................................................................................................. 5
Webpage ............................................................................................................................................ 5
Giveaway Items .................................................................................................................................. 5
3
In-Person Community Touchpoints ............................................................................................ 6
4
Online Survey ............................................................................................................................. 8
Summary of Survey Results .............................................................................................................. 24
5
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 25
6
Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 26
F-1
3
1 Background
The City of Buckeye, Arizona is developing its first Transportation Safety Plan (TSP) as part of the
United States Department of Transportation Safe Roads and Streets for All (SS4A) Program.
Buckeye was awarded a grant from the program of $600,000 and has added a local match of
$150,000 to develop the plan. To create an effective TSP, community and stakeholder
engagement are key. Public engagement is important as the City aims to create a plan that meets
the needs and values of the community, ensuring broad support. This approach recognizes that
everyone plays a role and shares responsibility in enhancing transportation safety. Agency
stakeholder engagement is also very important because several agencies have responsibility over
facilities and policies that are related to plan implementation.
The TSP Team has developed a Public Engagement Plan to guide engagement with the public
during the plan process. Public Engagement during plan development was conducted in a two-
phase effort as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 – Public Engagement Schedule
During Phase 2, the TSP Team engaged the public via several tabling events and conducted
engagement through Social Pinpoint, an online engagement platform. The team also developed
and distributed or posted informational and promotional materials via social media, emails, flyers,
and posters on A-frames; information is presented in the next section. This report summarizes
public engagement activities and results between September 29th and November 17th, 2025.
The goals of Phase 2 were:
•
Continue to create awareness of the project
•
Present crash information in terms of people
•
Gather feedback on the draft strategies
•
Gather feedback on priority of strategy type and investment
•
Encourage people to take the online survey
•
Meeting people at existing events in Buckeye
February -
March 2025
Phase 1
September -
November 2025
Phase 2
F-2
4
2 Message & Materials
The overall message for Phase II Engagement was to create an attention-grabbing message that
would connect with Buckeye residents and encourage them to take the online survey. The main
message for Phase 2 was:
Materials
To facilitate communication with the public, the TSP Team created a flyer, an informational poster, used
A-frame signs, social media posts, updated the project webpage, hosted an online survey, sent emails,
and provided giveaway items for events.
Flyer/Informational Poster
The flyer and informational poster were bilingual and similar in nature to each other, using Phase
2 messaging and imagery. The flyer was printed with English on one side and Spanish on the
reverse, and for the posters, two were presented on A-Frames or together, one in Spanish and the
other in English. The Phase II flyer and poster are included as Appendix A.
A-Frame Signs
Five A-frame signs were placed with posters at the Downtown Library, Dr. Saide Recreation
Center, Sundance Recreation Center, Sundance Park, and Earl Edgar Recreational Facility.
Engagement Boards at Community Touchpoints
In addition to the poster, there were two engagement boards developed to be used as interactive
activities at community touchpoints. The boards presented a group of draft strategies and asked people
for their level of agreement, and asked people to prioritize/rank the five focus areas. Appendix B
provides images of the two boards.
Safe Streets Start with You
Between 2019 and 2023, 241 people lost their lives or have been seriously injured on
Buckeye's streets. Each one of these tragedies could have been prevented, and
together, we can build a safer future for everyone.
The Buckeye Transportation Safety Plan is designed to make our roadways safer by
reducing and preventing fatal and serious-injury crashes.
By sharing your insights, you can help us create a safer Buckeye.
Please take a few moments to complete our online survey at
buckeyeaz.gov/safestreets.
F-3
5
Social Media
Social media posts were created during Phase 2 to inform residents of the project, and to
encourage them to take the online survey. The posts were posted on Facebook, Instagram and
NextDoor. Images of the social media posts are included as Appendix C.
Post Topic
Platform
Date
Reactions
Take the Survey
Facebook
Oct 17
36 likes, 4 shares
Take the Survey
Facebook
Oct 27
11 likes, 2 shares
Take the Survey
Paid Meta
Ad
Oct 27
7,497 views, 5,173
reach, 189 clicks
Take the Survey
Instagram
Oct 17
23 likes, 1,425 views
Take the Survey
Instagram
Oct 27
9 likes, 1,765 views
Take the Survey
Nextdoor
Oct 17
1,258 impressions
Take the Survey
Nextdoor
Oct 27
1,257 impressions
Table 1 - Social Media Posts and Reactions
Email & Newsletter Communications
An e-blast was sent via Buckeye’s GovDelivery account to 4,691 recipients on October 15,
encouraging residents to complete the online survey. This information was also featured in the
City’s bi-weekly newsletter on October 10 and October 24, which reached 15,604 recipients.
Webpage
The webpage was updated in October when the survey was launched and encouraged people to
take the online survey. Images of the webpage during this engagement period are included as
Appendix D.
Giveaway Items
The TSP bookmark was repurposed during this phase of engagement for a Halloween giveaway. On one
side of the bookmark, a sticker was placed, and two pieces of candy (a Lifesaver, and a Dum-Dum
lollipop) were attached. The sticker message was:
Don’t be a Dum-Dum, be a Lifesaver. Between 2019 and 2023, 241 people lost their lives or have been
seriously injured on Buckeye's streets. Road Safety Starts with You. Scan the QR Code on the back,
and take the survey to provide your input for safer streets.
There were 700 repurposed bookmarks handed out at the Buckeye Halloween Carnival. Please see
Appendix E for images.
F-4
6
3 In-Person Community Touchpoints
In lieu of a standard community meeting, the project team tabled at two scheduled community
events, set up an information table at Coyote Library for several days, and distributed engagement
materials at a Halloween event. At tabled events, the project team presented a shortened list of
proposed strategies on poster boards which asked participants to indicate, with stickers, whether they
“Agreed”, “Disagreed”, or were “Neutral” with the strategies. Participants were also asked to rank the
five focus areas from highest to lowest priority using sticky notes. The third and final board at tabled
events was an informational board that drove participants to take the online survey. At the Halloween
carnival, bookmarks were distributed with candy by project staff that bore a QR code on one side
directing people to the online survey as well. Table 2 displays a summary of in-person touchpoint
information.
Touchpoint Name
Date
Location
# of Participants Engaged
Movie In the Park
October 4th, 2025
Earl Edgar Recreational
Park
Interacted with 8 people
Coyote Library
Tabling
October 15, 2025
October 22, 2025
Buckeye Public Library -
Coyote Branch
Interacted with 34
people during two days
of project team tabling.
The table, flyers,
giveaways, and
engagement materials
were set up between
Oct 15th and 22nd; 75%
of material and
giveaways were gone by
the final day of tabling
Buckeye Halloween
Carnival
October 25, 2025
Downtown Buckeye (6th St
Plaza & Monroe Ave)
Distributed 700
repurposed bookmarks;
this event did NOT
include a tabling – only
promotional materials
and giveaways
Buckeye GAIN Event November 8, 2025
700 S Watson Rd Buckeye,
AZ 85326
Interacted with 40
people
Table 2 - Community Events
F-5
7
Community members that participated in the board activities tended to agree with most proposed
strategies with the only strategy receiving “Disagree” being to Pilot Red Light Cameras at High Crash
Locations. While many people did not have time to complete the board activities when spoken to,
many people chose to take a flyer and complete the survey at a later time as evidenced by the high
number of online survey participation after tabling events. Community members that completed the
focus area prioritization exercise in-person indicated that Safe Roads: Segments and Safe Roads:
Intersections were equally ranked as the top categories on average to prioritize.
Figure 2 - Table Set Up at Movie in the Park
Figure 3 - Project Team at Coyote Library
Figure 4 - Project Team Speaking to Communtiy Members at GAIN Event
F-6
8
4 Online Survey
An online survey was conducted via the Social Pinpoint platform from September 29 to November 17,
2025. In total, the survey was completed by 248 people, with spikes of activity corresponding to the dates
on in-person touchpoints as shown in Figure 5.
The survey presented the 25 proposed strategies and allowed participants to indicate whether they
Agreed, Disagreed, or were Neutral towards the strategies. The survey also prompted participants to
enter their own strategies that they thought should be included in the list. Participants were also asked
to rank the five focus areas from highest to lowest priority. In addition to these questions, the survey
featured a “Fund It” activity that asked participants to allocate $100 across the five focus areas. A copy
of the survey can be reviewed in Appendix F.
Figure 5 - Performance Summary of Social PinPoint Visitors and Contributers
F-7
9
The following tables present the average scores per question with 1=Disagree, 2=Neutral, and 3=Agree.
Focus Area: Safe Intersections
Questions 1-5: What is your level of agreement with the following proposed safety strategies?
Strategy
Average Score
(.0)
At signalized intersections, continue to add protected left turn signals where
crashes are most likely to occur, and freeway intersection and interchanges
2.9 / 3
At unsignalized intersections with stop signs, install red flashing beacons, and
add more signs and pavement markings.
2.8 / 3
At unsignalized intersections, evaluate different designs (example:
roundabouts, median U-turns) to simplify movements, reduce conflict points,
and speed.
2.4 / 3
At unsignalized intersections, add dedicated left and right turn lanes if
possible.
2.9 / 3
Install streetlights at intersections, merge points, and along roadway
corridors that have a history of nighttime crashes or are located where
crashes are most likely to occur (High Risk Network).
2.9 / 3
Table 3 - Survey Results for Safe Intersection Strategies
Question 6: For the focus area of Safe Roads - Intersections, is there a work effort you would suggest
adding? (Open Ended)
Sixty-seven (67) respondents made suggestions for additional considerations for Safe Roads –
Intersections. In summary, the main themes of feedback are:
1.
Enforcement & driver behavior
2.
Need for more traffic signals and better signal timing
3.
Lighting & sign visibility
4.
Intersection/roadway redesign needs
5.
Roundabout confusion
6.
Pedestrian/bicyclist safety
7.
Construction delays & maintenance
8.
Public education on roadway rules
The detailed comments are provided below:
•
Increase enforcement for unsafe driving, failure to use turn signals, reckless vehicular behavior, etc.
•
Roads need more lighting. Where there are no streetlights, more accidents.
•
Roundabout doesn't seem to work since most people don't know how to use them. I would suggest
something else.
•
Intersections with stop signs need to have larger and more visible stop signs and have blinking lights
•
stop sign on Beloat Rd
•
Sidewalks, one of Arizona biggest issues is lack of actual walkability. Adding sidewalks only inside
F-8
10
the areas of shopping and not to get there is not actual safety and limits usability
•
Temporary signal light at intersections with high traffic volume on Camelback Road.
•
Ensure that tree branches/foliage don't block stop signs & that median shrubbery at 90 degrees
does not block view at fast moving oncoming traffic.
•
Camelback and Jack Rabbit
•
There should be bike lanes in Festival on the major roadways instead of the useless medians.
•
Miller Road and Baseline Road intersection has needed a stop light for a VERY long time now.
•
Regarding traffic signals, ensure a 4 second Yellow before turning to Red. Once light is Red, ensure a
2 second delay before initiating Green in opposite direction. This gives plenty of time for vehicles to
clear the intersection.
•
More protected left turn lights (east bound Watson @ Yuma left turn for instance)
•
Restricting left turns by delaying green light or arrow until pedestrians are clear in crosswalk
•
Good lighting
•
Lights on the sides of streets (major backroads)
•
Red Light Cameras and MORE police presence on the freeway (I-10 - Miller through Jackrabbit)
•
Before adding a roundabout, fully investigate the total cost of these types of traffic control.
•
Repair shoulders and potholes at these intersections so drivers don't have to swing wide when
making a turn
•
increased traffic enforcement
•
Today a young man almost hit my children and I because apparently, he didn't know the rules of a
roundabout or didn't care although we were already driving in it. He didn't attempt to slow down.
For no commonsense drivers - slow down and yield signs.
•
Traffic light at Van Buren and Sun valley parkway
•
Police patrolling more People are so distracted doing everything but focusing on the road. Don’t
stop at lights or stop signs Pass on the shoulders
•
Sometimes some places need to just be one way. Just west of Yuma and Watson, for example
•
Add intersection lights and main busy sign directed intersection (ex: Broadway/ Watson rd.
intersection)
•
Apache and Lower Buckeye near Younger HS needs a signal light
•
Don’t take 5-10 years to get these done
•
We need more lanes and a traffic light at Broadway and Watson. All our traffic lights should be on
weights instead of timed.
•
Speed meters and traffic cameras. More highway officers to help reduce drivers on their phones
•
Eliminate many unsafe crossings. For example: cars coming from Aldi are allowed to cross Watson
to go to the Fry's parking lot area. Also, start to fine drivers that have unsafe behaviors
•
Streetlights
•
Intersection at Rainbow Rd and MC 85
•
Bike lanes and pedestrian access
•
Right turn arrows at bigger intersections and cameras at unsignalized intersections to catch those
running the stop signs and potentially make everyone behave better if they know they'll be fined
•
Crossing lanes (4 way, 3 way, 2 way)
•
Buckeye is too big for stop signs on the major roads once considered small farm roads. Need more
lights (red, yellow, green)
•
We need science [sic] at say do not make a right on a red arrow getting off I-10/Watson going north
and south and blinking signs there. It’s very dangerous. Also coming out of 2 140th Dr. off of Villa.
We have built more homes across the street
F-9
11
•
Have police ticketing those who run red lights and speeding
•
More traffic lights, overall.
•
Need more police force catching high speeding vehicles & trucks. We moved here from GA , outside
of Atlanta and the vehicles here drive much worse. The speed recklessly and they speed in and out
of lanes that you can't see them. They will kill so many
•
We need more traffic lights on heavily traveled roads that are synchronized to alleviate[sic] traffic
flow.
•
Although roundabouts can work effectively, in practice, it seems that many drivers do not
understand how they work. If implementing different designs, please consider if the design is
common enough that the average driver will understand its operation.
•
Speed bumps in neighborhoods
•
Standardized Stop Sign size and placement.
•
The intersection going into John McCain elementary from lower buckeye is a true safety hazard.
•
Need streetlights at high traveling intersections that currently has a 4 way stop sign. Need more
lanes going North & South on Tuthill, Jackrabbit, Verrado, and Rainbow Rd. Also need turning lanes
•
At signal intersections, make sure left turn signals work right.
•
Stop light on 247 & lower buckeye
•
Make sure the workers are working when signing in use. If not, you can take the signing for granted
and figure they are not working.
•
traffic lights
•
Increase the use of roundabouts
•
I agree with some protected left turns but there are intersections (Yuma Rd) where one car turning
left gets an arrow when there is only one car going straight the opposite direction. Even if the left
turner got thereafter. 2+cars should be protected
•
Have more four-way stops at intersections.
•
Make sure that intersections are clear of obstructions. Clear obstacles near intersections. Frequently
there are bushes and structures that inhibit the driver’s ability to see oncoming traffic.
•
Add a longer left turn lane, or add 2 left turn lanes for EB Yuma Rd traffic turning left to NB Watson
Rd.
•
Turns on green arrow ONLY.
•
A signal light at Watson and Broadway
•
Better lighting at unsignalized intersections.
•
At Yuma Road and 230th add lights or a roundabout.
•
Intersection at Rainbow Rd and Lower Buckeye
•
Add intersection lighting at high volume roads; bright flashing stop signs.
•
Fix Baseline and Miller at the railway area. It is a mess. You can't get across the road there if you
walk or at school let out. Nobody knows how to make a 4-way stop.
•
Finish road work and get rid of cones. Construction takes way too long.
•
More educational content via social media etc.
•
Strongly agree with more controlled left turn lanes
•
More police presence
•
Stop the weird striping we see in the valley around intersections and the entry to adjoining retail
plazas. These are confusing and lead to quick lane changes and possibly accidents
•
Clear pedestrian crossing with lighted signaling
F-10
12
Focus Area: Safe Roads
Questions 7-9: What is your level agreement with the following proposed safety strategies?
Strategy
Average Score
(.0)
Reduce conflict points, by simplifying roadway access to a limited number of
driveways and intersections per mile.
2.7 / 3
Build wider shoulders on rural roads
2.8 / 3
Install rumble strips to centerlines and edges of roadways.
2.8 / 3
Table 4 - Survey Results for Safe Roads Strategies
Question 10: For the focus area of Safe Roads, is there a work effort you would suggest adding?
(Open Ended)
Forty-two (42) respondents made suggestions for additional considerations for Safe Roads. In
summary, the main themes of feedback are:
1. Road Widening & Capacity Needs
2. Lighting, Visibility, and Nighttime Safety
3. Intersection Upgrades & Traffic Signals
4. Pedestrian & Cyclist Safety
5. Traffic Enforcement & Driver Behavior
6. Clearer Road Markings & Construction Practices
7. Neighborhood Access & Local Traffic Issues
8. Large-Scale Traffic Flow Ideas
The detailed comments are provided below:
•
Traffic lights at major shopping area entrances are a very good idea.
•
All roads need to be wider. Buckeye has too much traffic to have less than 2-3 lanes each direction.
•
Clear lane striping during construction
•
Widen roads for more than a 1/2 mile at a time
•
Actual walkability, one of AZ’s biggest issues is having safety features and sidewalks only in the
center of the shopping areas but getting there without a car is no more safe
•
Ensure plant materials are not growing up to the edge of the road by 8 feet so both drivers have
clear visuals of each other
•
Indian school road from jack rabbit to Perryville
•
Install devices that will make a noise when the crosswalk is safe to cross. This would be very helpful
for individuals who are seeing impaired or vision impairment.
•
Camelback and Jack Rabbit
•
More lanes. The massive increase in population will only rise, as will the impatient drivers wanting
F-11
13
to go 20+ over the speed limit.
•
More designated left turns in medians with less cross traffic (Watson between Aldi/Fry's gas station
and Yuma between Taco Bell/Fry's shopping center)
•
Verrado has so much parking on all their streets and many renters or owners park large corporate
vehicles on the road. It locks vision and makes passing another car impossible and dangerous.
They need to enforce no commercial vehicles parking overnight
•
Sun city festival should have pedestrian overpass/pedestrian bridge crossing SVP for walking and
bicycling. Very unsafe intersection
•
radar and ticket speeding and traffic offenders
•
Good lighting
•
Look at offsetting of intersecting roadways to avoid having future signalization.
•
There are too many places where the road has been partially widened by development then it
reduces down where buckeye won't widen the road.
•
Yes, in the rain I realized after moving here that you can't see the center line when driving on
highways and streets making it dangerous.
•
Jackrabbit and Verrado
•
Lighting in very dark stretches of road, especially where cows may wander.
•
Do NOT widen any road shoulders!!!! Impatient people use the shoulder of the road as land and
then aggressively push their way back onto the roadway. Making the shoulder wider would only
make the problem worse.
•
Main street and Verrado way. Added lights so that civilians walking can been seen in the evening or
night.
•
Bike lanes and pedestrian access
•
Road reflectors (every 15 to 20 feet)
•
Lines should be drawn on 3 lane roads for the center lanes to have access to turn either way when
coming to a fork. This will reduce panic lane changes and congestion on the single lane. Watson Rd
N approaching I-10 for example
•
Run a "service road" from Miller Rd down to Verrado Way to help decrease merging traffic on the I-
10. There is already something similar from Miller Rd to Watson Rd. But a road running parallel to
the I-10 interchange could reduce traffic and collisions.
•
We need streetlights at jackrabbit and I 10 there’s too many people for the stop signs although it
was helpful in the beginning and we also need a light at 240th.
•
Better lighting to locate pedestrians and bikes at night. Lighting is not enough and not bright
enough to see these people. Energy saving lighting will not save lives.
•
Main road access from neighborhoods need to be assessed for traffic entry.
•
Ensure that roadway painted lines are not faded and roadway markings are clear and unobstructed.
•
Rural roads at night are scary. Even reflective street signs would help me from slowing down trying
to figure out if I'm on the right path.
•
Speed limit on our street! Speeders for 17 years!
•
Yes
•
Lanes needed for North/South traveling on Tuthill, Jackrabbit, Verrado, Dean, Rainbow Rd. Currently
they're only 1 lane in each direction and are inundated with heavy traffic 24/7 so multiple lanes are
needed in both directions on roads going North/South
•
None
•
Add a stop light on 247 & Lower Buckeye
•
desperately need at least five lanes going east and west on I-10 from Watson Street to Loop303,
F-12
14
with all these residential housing being built and stores.
•
Left hand turns signals at all major
•
Have reflective markers on edge/center of road.
•
Re-stripe the right turn lanes for Circle K on Watson Rd / I-10, so that drivers DO NOT use that lane
as a “thru-lane” to I-10 EB on-ramp.
•
Removing scalloped streets regardless of development. Way too confusing.
•
When resources allow, have officers issue MORE moving violations!!
•
Alacron and Miller is a mess at school times.
Focus Area: Safe Roads for People Walking & Biking
Questions 11-15: What is your level agreement with the following proposed safety strategies?
Strategy
Average Score
(.0)
Improve lighting and enhance pedestrian crossings at signalized
intersections.
2.5 / 3
Based on type of roadway, provide separated bike lanes, or a shared-use
path.
2.8 / 3
Continue to implement a Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program to improve
safety for students traveling to and from school - walk, bike, bus or by car.
3.0 / 3
When designing roadway improvements, consider complete streets designs
to accommodate all modes, including walking, biking and future bus transit.
2.9 / 3
Install underpasses or bridges along roadways when new development
occurs.
2.8 / 3
Table 5 - Survey Results for Safe Roads for People Walking & Biking Strategies
Question 16: For the focus area of Safe Roads for People Walking & Biking, is there a work effort you
would suggest adding? (Open Ended)
Forty-four (44) respondents made suggestions for additional considerations for Safe Roads – People
Walking & Biking. In summary, the main themes of feedback are:
1. Need for More Sidewalks and Walkability (Most Frequent Theme)
2. Bike Lanes and Protected Cycling Infrastructure
3. Lighting & Night Visibility Improvements
4. Safer Crossings & Crosswalk Enhancements
5. Speed Control & Traffic Enforcement
6. Road Markings & Visibility for All Users
7. Multimodal Transportation & Long-Term Mobility
8. Accessibility & Special Infrastructure Needs
F-13
15
The detailed comments are provided below:
•
Traffic sidewalks where possible and bike lanes where possible
•
Better lighting along common walking routes.
•
Make the crossing by Baseline and Miller a safer crossing since you can't cross it now without
getting run over.
•
Add more crossings and lights near schools so multiple crossings are available to students
•
Keep old freight rail lines intact to use as future commuter rail. Absolutely do NOT make mistakes as
in Los Angeles area--do the opposite. Old railways are valuable transportation resources. Expand
buses to west side and beyond Buckeye into Tonopah
•
Keep old freight line rails intact as s way to add commuter rail in the future. Learn from the horrible
mistakes of Los Angeles and think of future improvements to link outlying Buckeye area and all west
side to existing bus transport. Need buses bad.
•
Actual walkability, one of AZs biggest issues and having sidewalks and safety measures only in the
center of the shopping or entertainment but getting there is no safer this implies you must drive to
space to walk in safety and is unhelpful
•
Cross Walk Ahead signs
•
Just bike lanes & sidewalks.
•
Plenty of Lighting along the roads
•
Sidewalks have done the job for many decades now. Why aren't they here for pedestrians?
•
At a minimum, paint bike lane borders
•
Underpasses flood.
•
Install pedestrian bridge over SVP in the Sun Valley Festival community
•
Wide sidewalks and good lighting
•
Developers and schools need to design into their plans safe, separate access for their pedestrian,
especially full build out, traffic
•
Flashing lights are needed for pedestrians too. People do not look before crossing and assume the
drivers see them.
•
Speed bumps, there are so many people speeding.
•
Sidewalks are the biggest help, seconded by designated lanes.
•
On roads with a speed limit of 35 mph and under we should have more patrols to limit speeding
•
2 things: 1) a sensibilization campaign for drivers because many are distracted or not respecting the
signs for pedestrians; 2) start giving fines to drivers not respecting pedestrians
•
Main street and Verrado way. Added lights so that civilians walking can been seen in the evening to
night.
•
Do whatever they do in Denmark. Make Bicycle and pedestrian access top priority.
•
When adding bike lanes widen the road don't just shorten the car lane to make room for the bikes.
Also use lots of markings, bold lines and reflective paint for all bike paths
•
Fix all uneven surfaces on sidewalks! Make HOA's responsible for fixing them ASAP.
•
cooperative arrangement with Irrigation Districts to establish bike corridors to access arterials and
bike corridors on or near arterials.
•
Buckeye is not a small farm town anymore, more proper lights at intersections is needed (with red,
yellow, green lights)
•
If someone is crossing the street, we need a barrier that’s up high and blinking so people that
cannot see the pedestrian walking and see the blinking lights and know that someone is coming
otherwise, there’s a big car next to you. You cannot see the person
F-14
16
•
Verrado Way & Main St.
•
More bike paths
•
Better lighting to locate pedestrians and bikes at night. Lighting is not enough and not bright
enough to see these people. Energy saving lighting will not save lives.
•
Bike lanes on the roadway with the cars are too dangerous. Possible curb protection for cyclists
would help keep everyone safe.
•
Please more sidewalks. Sidewalks are highly lacking along Miller and areas west of Watson. Add
signage when bike lanes and walkways are added to alert drivers.
•
Sidewalks with taller straight curbs or preventive angles, to prevent cars jumping the curb, such as
in snow states like New Hampshire. This would help to minimize or prevent cars from jumping curbs
for pedestrians and cyclists to minimally.
•
If anticipating a particular road to become busier in the future; I feel flashing lights would be a good
alert to start slowing down.
•
Enforcing the speed limit.
•
The intersection going into John McCain elementary from lower buckeye is a true safety hazard
•
painted lane lines
•
Intersections.
•
In areas around the adult communities add golf cart trails to get to store easier for those that are
not able to drive.
•
More sidewalks or paths for walking
•
Make sure people obey the signal for people in med-block, they currently don't.
•
Enforcing encroachment of bike lanes with proper marking and painting.
•
Speed bumps
•
Painted to make the lane more visible.
Focus Area: Safe Speeds
Questions 17-19: What is your level agreement with the following proposed safety strategies?
Strategy
Average Score
(.0)
Pilot red light and/or speed safety cameras at high-risk crash locations.
2.4 / 3
Pilot red light and/or speed safety cameras in school zones.
2.7 / 3
Design roadways and intersections to match the posted speed of the
roadway– Example: if a roadway is marked at 25mph, but people are driving
35mph, re-design the intersection or roadway so people travel at 25mph.
2.5 / 3
Table 6 - Survey Results for Safe Speeds Strategies
F-15
17
Question 20: For the focus area of Safe Speeds, is there a work effort you would suggest adding?
(Open Ended)
Sixty-one (61) respondents made suggestions for additional considerations for Safe Speeds. In
summary, the main themes of feedback are:
1. Strong Demand for Increased Traffic Enforcement (Most Frequent Theme)
2. A Split Debate About Speed Cameras / Photo Enforcement
3. Speed Control Measures: Speed Bumps, Humps, and Traffic Calming
4. Roadway Design to Match Realistic Speeds
5. School Zone Safety Concerns
6. Red-Light and Stop-Sign Compliance Issues
7. Speed Limit Changes and Consistency
8. Mixed Opinions About Roundabouts
The detailed comments are provided below:
•
Matching road design to speed limit is a good idea.
•
More officers of the law visibility.
•
Cameras should be added to stop sign intersections and contact made with those that run the stop
signs.
•
Add more signals/stop signs up and down Verrado way so speeding is not such an issue
•
No roundabouts!! Too many people don't know how to use them. I have been hit 2x no fault on my
side.
•
Enforcement of super - excessive speed on local freeway
•
Road texture additions near upcoming speed limit signs as a signal to refocus is sufficient rather
than additional distractions and flashing lights that trigger health issues for known driving
expectations
•
Bring back speed cameras and ticketing
•
More posted speed enforcement.
•
Post Az section 28-723 signage as much as possible. Other drivers pass on the right and take risks to
get around these slower drivers.
•
more undercover traffic enforcement.
•
Ripple strips.
•
Speed bumps
•
More police officers positioned in critical areas. Seems obvious.
•
Running red lights is a serious & dangerous violation. Install cameras at all signalized intersections
to ensure motorists stop running red lights. Plus, this provides revenue for the city by motorists who
intentionally run red lights.
•
More enforcement of the existing traffic laws. More visible traffic police patrols. Higher fines for
traffic offenses.
•
School zones are constantly ignored. Speed cameras in places like Miller/Alarcon would be helpful.
•
Camera radar
•
enforce speed limits
•
Speed enforcement by flashing lights
•
Need speed bumps on all housing community streets
•
Have police obey and enforce speed limits
•
SR85 is set at 55mph, and everyone travels at 80mph or more. Better monitoring! The left hand
F-16
18
turns to cross the median to surface streets are frightening for those traveling at the posted speed.
Change the posted limit or dedicate police to enforce.
•
Add more speed humps to long roads.
•
Residential areas should especially be designed for the proposed posted speed limit...no factor of
safety, leave that for the arterials and higher
•
Congestion is the main contributor I have seen in the last 20 years.
•
Speed bumps
•
More vigilance on the I-10. It's dangerous due to speeding. Adding an additional lane to west exist
on I-10 at Watson. The rush hour traffic going west must come to a sudden stop that creates a
dangerous situation for drivers.
•
don’t you dare ruin Buckeye further by adding revenue driven photo cameras. These have never
solved traffic safety issues and are just a money grab against citizens
•
Police presence over camera systems
•
Speed cameras, harsher fines for speeder especially in high-risk zones.
•
Speed bumps in very specific locations are helpful but should be built sparingly.
•
Keep the side road speeds at 45-55.
•
Patrol and ticketing
•
Speed humps in areas to slow down speeders/racing
•
higher penalty for noncompliance.
•
Speed limits within all neighborhoods should be consistent. Westpark has 15-40mph?
•
Speed bumps might be useful in residential areas around schools or in high traffic areas like
Sundance parkway and West Park
•
Is about time for Buckeye to reduce the speed limit to the dangerous 10 frwy to 65 mph as all of our
Eastern neighbors have.
•
School zones are unclear. I was ticketed for speeding in a school zone, but markings are unclear
whether the speed is for all day or not. Signs contradict each other.
•
Cameras are at intersections for identification purposes already. Have a traffic division of Buckeye
PD specifically for the school zones to protect children. All school hours Buckeye PD could post up
and just start pulling people over.
•
The stop signs make people speed. We need proper lights at intersections
•
People are always speeding. We probably need more speed enforcement zone signs.
•
Traffics engineers should coordinate traffic lights to be green if the driver stays at the speed limit.
This would encourage flow of traffic/ safety and less pollution.
•
Please avoid using speed bumps. Car damage is unavoidable and expensive repairs to public. They
are a nuisance.
•
Increase police presence on roads in which drivers speed or blow through stop signs and red lights
(e.g., Miller and Baseline)
•
Commute lanes such as in mountain areas to move traffic along, during certain times and slow
during other times.
•
Hire more police officers for enforcement. Traffic cameras do not respond to help people or provide
discretion.
•
Again, speed limit on 268th Potter Drive. Festival
•
More patrol of late-night high-speed driving in Verrado.
•
Yes, assign police patrol at Younker High School where students are in danger as are vehicle and bus
accidents
•
People are going to speed regardless of what you do so the only thing that works is police
F-17
19
enforcement
•
Have police stop and ticket speeders; change speed limits to 30
•
Adding speed bumps along South Sundance Parkway.
•
N/A
•
Find alternate methods to slow people down rather than redlight and speed cameras.
•
Issue moving violations. Otherwise, there is NO consequences for the action
•
More police presence in those areas
•
More roundabouts and less signals and 4 way stops
•
More traffic enforcement. For example, write more tickets.
•
Even though I do not like driving over them, but in residential areas install speed bumps. People on
my street exceed the speed limit continuously.
•
I think speed camera signs can be quite effective for most drivers Esp when they incorporate red and
blue flashing lights
Focus Area: Safe Users
Questions 21-27: What is your level agreement with the following proposed safety strategies?
Strategy
Average Score
(.0)
Develop and implement education campaigns for distracted driving, seatbelt
use, and impaired driving.
2.7 / 3
Promote safer walking, biking through targeted education and enforcement
campaigns.
2.8 / 3
Modify designs at select intersections (downtown Buckeye, trail crossings)
that include lighting, walk only phases, smaller roadway widths for people
walking or rolling.
2.7 / 3
Continue and expand proactive enforcement of traffic laws to deter
dangerous driving behaviors and reinforce safe roadway use.
2.9 / 3
Promote motorcycle helmet use and safe riding practices for motorcyclists
through ongoing engagement campaigns.
2.7 / 3
Create youth education campaigns for helmet use, rules of the road, and
youth bicycle helmet requirements.
2.9 / 3
Expand the DUI Enforcement through use of high-visibility enforcement
techniques, saturation patrols, & integrated enforcement tactics.
2.9 / 3
Table 7 - Survey Results for Safe Users Strategies
F-18
20
Question 28: For the focus area of Safe Users, is there a work effort you would suggest adding? (Open
Ended)
Forty-four (44) respondents made suggestions for additional considerations for Safe Roads –
Intersections. In summary, the main themes of feedback are:
1. Increased Enforcement of Dangerous Driving Behaviors (Most Frequent Theme)
2. Higher Penalties & Stronger Consequences
3. Need for Targeted Driver Education (Varied Opinions)
4. Infrastructure Changes to Reduce Risk
5. Speed Limit Adjustments and Speed Management
6. Distracted Driving and Technology-Related Hazards
The detailed comments are provided below:
•
DUI enforcement should include cannabis & other drugs. More people drive impaired by substances
than alcohol.
•
Education and campaigns don't work and is a waste of money. It does not change the way people
behave.
•
More patrols on the weekends of major streets where speeding/racing are an issue
•
Saturation of police is fairly noticeable as it is increasing these campaigns when traffic school exist is
not a valuable use of resources focus on increasing mobility diverse usability of the city and youth
focuses programs as prevention
•
Higher fines for excessive speed…i.e.: motorcycles going 90 in a side street that’s signed at 35
•
Pedestrian walk signals.
•
Traffic light at Miller Rd. and Maricopa
•
Again, position more police officers at critical areas. We all know where the critical areas are and
we all rarely see dangerous drivers receive justice.
•
Make speeding, wreck less driving and DUI's stiffer penalties and maximum sentencing.
•
Mandatory driver training and testing for all people seeking a driver's license for the first time in
Arizona.
•
Education will always be worthwhile, but the issue seems to be lack of enforcement.
•
Verrado Way
•
Decreasing highway speed from 75 to 65
•
More police presence in towns & on 10
•
Zero tolerance for any enforcement action involving a vehicle vs a pedestrian
•
As a retired law enforcement officer, I don't support gotcha campaigns. Speed is a greater factor
over impairment.
•
Too many minors driving motorbikes and e-bikes without proper lights or tags
•
Enforcement and heavy fines for distracted driving, road rage and impatient drivers.
•
Make the speed limit for semi driver 55 on I-10 and keep semi drivers out of the passing lanes
•
Motorcycle education for every driver. Several times cars do not see Motorcycles and hit them.
•
Pedestrian corridor education
•
Lights at Sun Valley pkwy going into Tartesso
•
Off-road vehicles have too many lights that are too bright.
•
Temporary traffic lights for construction zones
•
Red light cameras at all signaling intersections.
F-19
21
•
All these suggested are common sense. I can’t see any reason why we are not doing any of this right
now if we’re not already.
•
High fines for stop sign/ right turn runners. It’s out of control.
•
Make it illegal to drive a motorcycle without a helmet, like it is in much of our country.
•
Narrowing roadways at crossings with extended curbs is helpful but designs seen around Sundance
golf course are dangerous on small roadways. Unfortunately, Safety education is needed but will eat
up costs of doing roadways.
•
In terms of education, I would focus efforts on youth’s vs adults. A licensed driver should be well
aware of the law; failure to comply with law at that point is likely a choice vs lack of knowledge.
•
Share the Road campaign so that drivers are respectful of cyclists.
•
More proactive enforcement of moving violations is needed!
•
Additional police presence often adds different hazards for drivers.
•
Education campaigns should use fear. It’s a scary topic and a serious one. They should be afraid not
to make safer choices and campaigns should feel daunting, leaving people with a sense of shock.
•
More work to prevent texting while driving.
•
Spending funds on education campaigns won't make a difference people already know the laws, so
use funds to improve roads & more police staffing
•
emphasize distracted driving enforcement
•
Increase patrols overall to enforce traffic laws, especially in the areas with 4-way stops, and on main
thorough ways (MC85, Beloat, Southern, etc.). These areas have a high number of speeders, stop
sign runners, and aggressive drivers.
•
Light at Tuthill and Beloat rd.
•
Teach the use of turn signals. Most drivers in AZ don’t use them.
•
Enforce no cell phone usage while driving.
•
DUI monitoring
•
Education on the dangers of "Tail Gating" and not using the turn signals.
•
Strict enforcement in school zones
•
Increase enforcement for significant violations of traffic regulations (speeding, aggressive driving)
without targeting drivers who commit minor violations (i.e.: failure to come to a complete stop at
intersections)
F-20
22
Focus Area Prioritization
Question 29: Considering the five focus areas of the strategies, how would you prioritize them?
Participants ranked Safe Intersections as the highest priority, followed by Safe Roads and Safe Speeds.
Safe Roads for People Walking & Biking and Safe Users were ranked lower but still received significant
support. The score indicated in the table below represents an average weighted score between 1-5. The
higher the average score, the higher the area ranked overall. The ranking of Intersections as the top
priority mirrors the input from Phase 1 Engagement where community members indicated that
Intersections were the locations with the most safety concerns.
Focus Area
Avg Score
Priority
Safe Intersections
2.06
1
Safe Roads
2.66
2
Safe Speeds
2.82
3
Safe Roads for People Walking & Biking
3.51
4
Safe Users
3.82
5
Table 8 - Survey Results for Prioritization of Five Focus Areas
Question 33: FUND IT – Please invest $100 across the five focus areas
In the “Fund It” activity, participants allocated the largest portion of hypothetical dollars to Safe
Intersections ($28.64 on average), reinforcing their average prioritization rankings from the previous
question. Progressively smaller investments were then directed toward Safe Roads, Safe Speeds, Safe
Roads for People Walking & Biking, and Safe Users.
Enforcement and education, which fall under Safe Users, are comparatively low cost and quickly
deployable strategies that influence behavior across the entire transportation system. The annual fully
burdened cost of a single law enforcement officer is typically on the order of $200,000 and a citywide
education and awareness campaign can often be implemented for $75,000 per year. By comparison, a
single capital improvement project such as widening an intersection and installing a traffic signal
commonly costs $2.5 million and benefits only one location. While capital improvements remain critical
in certain locations, Safe Users strategies allow cities to reduce risk broadly and immediately while
using limited capital funds more strategically for locations where infrastructure changes will have the
greatest impact.
Focus Area
Average $
Safe Intersections
$28.64
Safe Roads
$22.08
Safe Speeds
$18.57
Safe Roads for People Walking & Biking
$15.58
Safe Users
$15.11
Table 9 - Survey Results for Investment of Five Focus Areas
F-21
23
Supporting Questions
Question 30: How did you hear about this survey?
Question 31: In a typical week how do you mainly get around on Buckeye streets? [CHECK ONE ONLY]
Social Media
36%
Public Event
2%
Word-of-Mouth
3%
Advertisements
1%
City of Buckeye
Newsletter
58%
How did you hear about this survey?
Social Media
Public Event
Word-of-Mouth
Advertisements
City of Buckeye Newsletter
Other
Walk, 2%
Bike, 3%
Drive , 94%
Carpool, 1%
In a typical week how do you mainly get around on Buckeye streets?
[CHECK ONE ONLY]
Walk
Bike
Drive
Carpool
Rideshare
Other
F-22
24
Question 32: What other ways do you get around on Buckeye streets? [SELECT ALL THAT APPLY]
Summary of Survey Results
Respondents overwhelmingly supported most strategies, with average agreement scores typically
between 2.7 and 3.0 on a 3-point scale. Strongest agreement appeared in strategies related to Safe Roads
for People Walking & Biking, particularly Safe Routes to School, complete streets design, and separated
bicycle facilities, while Safe Intersections strategies such as protected left turns, lighting improvements,
and enhanced signage also received high marks. Participants contributed extensive written feedback
emphasizing the need for better lighting, more traffic enforcement, improved signage, additional signals,
clearer lane markings, and infrastructure to support pedestrians and cyclists.
Across all focus areas, open-ended comments consistently highlighted three themes: inadequate
lighting, insufficient enforcement, and roadway designs that cannot keep up with rapid population
growth. Residents frequently requested more signals at specific intersections, widened roads and
shoulders, safer school crossings, protected bike lanes, and stronger penalties for reckless driving. Many
also expressed concerns about roundabouts, speeding, distracted driving, and the lack of sidewalks and
connectivity in developing areas. Suggestions for Safe Speeds and Safe Users further stressed the need
for targeted enforcement, especially in school zones, residential streets, and high-risk corridors, as well
as more public education. Some respondents questioned the effectiveness of education campaigns
without enforcement.
When asked to prioritize the five focus areas, participants ranked Safe Intersections as the highest
priority, followed by Safe Roads and Safe Speeds. Safe Roads for People Walking & Biking and Safe Users
were ranked lower but still received significant support. In the “Fund It” activity, participants allocated
the largest portion of hypothetical dollars to Safe Intersections ($28.64 on average), reinforcing their
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Walk
Bike
Drive
Carpool
Rideshare
Other
What other ways do you get around on Buckeye streets? [SELECT ALL THAT APPLY]
F-23
25
prioritization, with progressively smaller investments directed toward Safe Roads, Safe Speeds, Safe
Roads for People Walking & Biking, and Safe Users.
Overall, the results show strong community alignment around improving intersections, school zone
safety, expanding roadway lighting, expanding sidewalk connectivity, and increasing enforcement as key
strategies for improving safety in Buckeye.
5. Conclusions
Phase 2 of engagement was successful in gathering input and feedback on the proposed strategies
primarily via the online survey. While in-person interactions and conversations were limited, the
materials distributed at in-person tabling events served to drive traffic to the survey. Almost all feedback
towards proposed strategies was positive, with a consensus that Safe Intersections are the highest
priority to fund and focus on.
The Buckeye Newsletter proved to be the most successful method in promoting the survey, followed by
Social Media. The lack of a traditional community meeting did not seem to affect the quantity or quality
of input received.
F-24
26
4 Appendices
Appendix A – Flyers and Posters
F-25
26
4 Appendices
Appendix A – Flyers and Posters
F-26
26
4 Appendices
Appendix A – Flyers and Posters
F-27
26
4 Appendices
Appendix A – Flyers and Posters
F-28
27
Appendix B – Community Touchpoint Boards
F-29
28
F-30
29
Appendix C – Social Media Posts
F-31
30
F-32
31
F-33
32
F-34
33
Appendix D – Webpage
F-35
34
Appendix E - Repurposed Bookmark with Sticker and Candy:
F-36
Page 37
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
APPENDIX
APPENDIX G:
STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS
G-1
Strategy ID: 1
Action ID: 1.1
Safe System Category: Safe Roads - Intersections
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
6-12 months
Step 2:
6-12 months
Step 3:
Ongoing
Lead:
Support:
Reduce crashes and opportunities for speeding by continuing to regularly review and refine traffic
signal timing to improve operations and safety. Develop a Traffic Signal Management Plan to
guide proactive adjustments, coordinate timing across corridors, and support ongoing
evaluation. Update signal timing protocols and engineering guidelines as needed to ensure
consistent and effective implementation.
Continue to review and refine signal timing more frequently to improve traffic operations and
safety. Develop a Traffic Signal Management Plan to guide proactive adjustments and
standardize signal timing protocols and engineering guidelines for consistency.
Steps for Implementation
Assess current signal timing, review practices, and identify
opportunities to increase review frequency and coordination
across key corridors.
Develop a Traffic Signal Management Plan outlining procedures,
performance measures, and schedule for regular signal timing
evaluations and updates.
Arterial/Collector Signalized Intersections, SR 85 and I-10
Signalized Intersections
Developed, ADOT Facilities
1-2 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Implement the plan, conduct periodic signal timing reviews,
document improvements, and refine protocols based on
performance.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$100,000-$250,000
HSIP, Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Traffic Signal Optimization
Program (TSOP)
Notes for
Implementation:
Update all signal timing every 2-3 years on a staggered cycle.
PMO-Transportation
ADOT Regional Traffic, COB/ADOT Maintenance
G-1
Strategy ID: 2
Action ID: 2.1
Safe System Category: Safe Roads - Intersections
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
6-9 months
Step 2:
6-12 months
Step 3:
3-6 months (initially to
assess) then Ongoing
Lead:
Support:
Continue to improve safety at stop-controlled intersection locations with frequent failure-to-yield
crashes (context sensitive) by installing red flashing beacons at stop signs; and systematically
install low-cost countermeasures that include: enhanced signage (larger signs, ‘Cross Traffic
Does Not Stop’) and STOP AHEAD pavement markings and signs.
Install red flashing beacons at stop signs
Steps for Implementation
Continue to identify and prioritize stop-controlled intersections
that have frequent failure-to-yield crashes.
Develop plans for the improvements.
SR 85 and I-10 Stop-Controlled Intersections,
Arterial/Collector Stop-Controlled Intersections
Developed, Undeveloped, ADOT Facilities
1-2 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Install red flashing beacons at stop signs.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$100,000-$250,000
ADOT/COB/MCDOT operations or maintenance budget, HSIP, MAG Safety
Notes for
Implementation:
Solar-powered beacons are a cost-effective option for remote locations where
wiring is impractical.
ADOT/MCDOT
Engineering, PMO-
Transportation
ADOT/COB/MCDOT Maintenance
G-2
Strategy ID: 2
Action ID: 2.2
Safe System Category: Safe Roads - Intersections
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-6 months
Step 2:
3-6 months
Step 3:
Ongoing
Lead:
Support:
Continue to improve safety at stop-controlled intersection locations with frequent failure-to-yield
crashes (context sensitive) by installing red flashing beacons at stop signs; and systematically
install low-cost countermeasures that include: enhanced signage (larger signs, ‘Cross Traffic
Does Not Stop’) and STOP AHEAD pavement markings and signs.
Systematically apply multiple low-cost countermeasures at stop-controlled intersections
Steps for Implementation
Identify and prioritize stop-controlled intersections that have
frequent failure-to-yield crashes.
Develop plans for the improvements.
Stop Controlled Intersections
Developed, Undeveloped, ADOT Facilities
2-5 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Install signage and pavement marking legends.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$0-$100,000
ADOT/COB/MCDOT operations or maintenance budget, HSIP
Notes for
Implementation:
All-way stop or roundabout should also be considered. Add raised reflective
pavement markers (RRPMs) with longitudinal lines at half the distance of current
Buckeye standards.
ADOT/COB DSD/MCDOT
Engineering , PMO-
Transportation
ADOT/COB/MCDOT Maintenance
G-3
Strategy ID: 3
Action ID: 3.1
Safe System Category: Safe Roads - Intersections
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
6-12 months
Step 2:
1-2 years
Step 3:
12-36 months
Lead:
Support:
At unsignalized intersections of major roads, continue to install traffic signals to improve control
and reduce failure-to-yield crashes. At unsignalized intersections of minor and local roads, use
process decision guidelines to consider installing reduced conflict intersections: left-in/left-out,
median U-turns, roundabouts, and/or raised medians to simplify movements, reduce conflict
points, and speeds.
At unsignalized intersections of roads with a high speed, and failure to yield incidents, use
process decision guidelines to consider installing reduced conflict intersections: left-in/left-out,
median U-turns, roundabouts, and/or raised medians to simplify movements, reduce conflict
points, and speeds.
Continue to review, study, and install innovative/unconventional intersection treatments like
median U-turns, restricted crossing U-turns, or raised medians
Steps for Implementation
Identify and prioritize unsignalized intersections that are
candidates for innovative/unconventional intersection treatments.
Develop plans for the improvements including development of
standards and/or guidelines.
Collector/Local/Minor Intersections
Developed, Undeveloped
5+ years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Install innovative/unconventional intersection treatments and
monitor their effectiveness to guide future installations and
updates to standards.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$2,000,000-$4,000,000
COB Capital Improvement Program (CIP), HSIP
Notes for
Implementation:
Refer to NACTO Urban Street Design Guide to develop standards
COB/MCDOT Engineering
Consultants, Contractors
G-4
Strategy ID: 3
Action ID: 3.2
Safe System Category: Safe Roads - Intersections
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
6-12 months
Step 2:
1-2 years
Step 3:
12-36 months
Lead:
Support:
At unsignalized intersections of major roads, continue to install traffic signals to improve control
and reduce failure-to-yield crashes. At unsignalized intersections of minor and local roads, use
process decision guidelines to consider installing reduced conflict intersections: left-in/left-out,
median U-turns, roundabouts, and/or raised medians to simplify movements, reduce conflict
points, and speeds.
At unsignalized intersections of roads with a high speed, and failure to yield incidents, use
process decision guidelines to consider installing reduced conflict intersections: left-in/left-out,
median U-turns, roundabouts, and/or raised medians to simplify movements, reduce conflict
points, and speeds.
Continue to install traffic signals
Steps for Implementation
Identify and prioritize unsignalized intersections that are
candidates for a traffic signal.
Develop plans for the improvements including development of
standards and/or guidelines. Establish criteria for meeting
warrants with crash warrant being the minimum requirement for
implementation.
Collector Unsignalized Intersections
Developed, Undeveloped
2-5 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Install traffic signal.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$1,000,000-$2,000,000
COB CIP, HSIP
Notes for
Implementation:
Convert unsignalized intersections.
COB/MCDOT Engineering
Consultants, Contractors
G-5
Strategy ID: 3
Action ID: 3.3
Safe System Category: Safe Roads - Intersections
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
1-2 years
Step 2:
1-2 years
Step 3:
12-36 months
Lead:
Support:
At unsignalized intersections of major roads, continue to install traffic signals to improve control
and reduce failure-to-yield crashes. At unsignalized intersections of minor and local roads, use
process decision guidelines to consider installing reduced conflict intersections: left-in/left-out,
median U-turns, roundabouts, and/or raised medians to simplify movements, reduce conflict
points, and speeds.
At unsignalized intersections of roads with a high speed, and failure to yield incidents, use
process decision guidelines to consider installing reduced conflict intersections: left-in/left-out,
median U-turns, roundabouts, and/or raised medians to simplify movements, reduce conflict
points, and speeds.
Install high-capacity single-lane roundabout
Steps for Implementation
Identify and prioritize unsignalized intersections that are
candidates for a high-capacity single-lane roundabout.
Develop plans for the improvements including development of
standards and/or guidelines.
Local and Collector Unsignalized Intersections
Developed, Undeveloped
5+ years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Install high-capacity single-lane roundabout.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$2,000,000-$4,000,000
COB CIP, HSIP
Notes for
Implementation:
Install roundabouts (COB EDS 6-3.600). Update processes, engineering standards
and guidelines to support the selection and implementation of these proven safety
countermeasures.
COB/MCDOT Engineering
Consultants, Contractors
G-6
Strategy ID: 3
Action ID: 3.4
Safe System Category: Safe Roads - Intersections
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
6-12 months
Step 2:
1-2 years
Step 3:
12-36 months
Lead:
Support:
Install small single-lane roundabout.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$1,000,000-$2,000,000
COB CIP, HSIP
Notes for
Implementation:
Install roundabouts (COB EDS 6-3.600) or traffic calming, develop details
(chicanes, bulb-outs). Refer to NACTO Urban Street Design Guide to develop
details. Toolbox for traffic calming measure for certain roadway types. Update
processes, engineering standards and guidelines to support the selection and
implementation of these proven safety countermeasures.
COB/MCDOT Engineering
Consultants, Contractors
At unsignalized intersections of major roads, continue to install traffic signals to improve control
and reduce failure-to-yield crashes. At unsignalized intersections of minor and local roads, use
process decision guidelines to consider installing reduced conflict intersections: left-in/left-out,
median U-turns, roundabouts, and/or raised medians to simplify movements, reduce conflict
points, and speeds.
At unsignalized intersections of roads with a high speed, and failure to yield incidents, use
process decision guidelines to consider installing reduced conflict intersections: left-in/left-out,
median U-turns, roundabouts, and/or raised medians to simplify movements, reduce conflict
points, and speeds.
Install small single-lane roundabout
Steps for Implementation
Identify and prioritize unsignalized intersections that are
candidates for a small single-lane roundabout.
Develop plans for the improvements including development of
standards and/or guidelines.
Local and Collector Intersections and Segments
Developed, Undeveloped
2-5 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
G-7
Strategy ID: 4
Action ID: 4.1
Safe System Category: Safe Roads - Intersections
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
6-12 months
Step 2:
12-24 months
Step 3:
12-36 months
Lead:
Support:
Reduce angle and left-turn crashes by continuing to install innovative intersection
configurations—such as roundabouts, Restricted Crossing U-Turns (RCUTs) and diverging
diamond interchanges instead of traditional stop control and traffic signals where appropriate.
These designs simplify vehicle movements and reduce conflict points. Update processes,
engineering standards and guidelines to support the selection and implementation of these
proven safety countermeasures.
Continue to install reduced left-turn conflict intersections such as RCUT, roundabouts, and
diverging diamond interchanges
Steps for Implementation
Identify intersections along I-10 with higher frequencies of angle or
left-turn crashes to prioritize locations for innovative intersection
treatments and use ADOT's AICE Tool, once available, to help
identify the most desirable intersection treatment.
Update engineering standards, design criteria, and selection
processes to support consistent evaluation and implementation of
RCUTs, roundabouts, and diverging diamond interchanges.
I-10 Intersections
ADOT Facilities
5+ years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Advance design and construction of prioritized intersection
improvements and monitor safety performance to inform future
applications of these treatments.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$3,000,000–$30,000,000
HSIP, MAG Safety
Notes for
Implementation:
ADOT's Arizona Intersection Control Evaluation (AICE) tool is under development
and is anticipated to be available in late 2026 for use in determining appropriate
intersection configurations and control types
ADOT Regional Traffic,
PMO - Transportation
Consultants, Contractors
G-8
Strategy ID: 5
Action ID: 5.1
Safe System Category: Safe Roads - Intersections
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-6 months
Step 2:
3-6 months
Step 3:
6-12 months
Lead:
Support:
Reduce the risk of left-turn collisions at existing signalized intersections by continuing to remove
negative offset left-turn geometry and implement protected-only left-turn phasing at HRN and
other high crash locations. Reduce the risk of left-turn collisions at intersections by improving
driver visibility at intersection corners.
Continue to implement protected-only left-turn signal phasing
Steps for Implementation
Review existing arterial and collector signalized intersections to
identify locations with high left-turn crash rates or operational
conflicts suitable for protected-only phasing.
Develop work orders or plans to support consistent
implementation of protected-only left-turn phases across
applicable intersections.
Arterial/Collector Signalized Intersections
Developed, Undeveloped
1-2 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Install protected-only left-turn signal phasing at prioritized
intersections and evaluate safety outcomes to refine future
applications.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$0–$250,000
MAG Safety, MAG TSOP, HSIP
Notes for
Implementation:
ADOT's Arizona Intersection Control Evaluation (AICE) tool is under development
and is anticipated to be available in late 2026 for use in determining appropriate
intersection configurations and control types
COB/MCDOT Engineering
Consultants, Contractors, and COB Public Works
G-9
Strategy ID: 5
Action ID: 5.2
Safe System Category: Safe Roads - Intersections
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-6 months
Step 2:
3-6 months
Step 3:
12-24 months
Lead:
Support:
Reduce the risk of left-turn collisions at existing signalized intersections by continuing to remove
negative offset left-turn geometry and implement protected-only left-turn phasing at HRN and
other high crash locations. Reduce the risk of left-turn collisions at intersections by improving
driver visibility at intersection corners.
Continue to install positive left-turn offset / remove negative left-turn offset geometry
Steps for Implementation
Identify arterial and collector signalized intersections with negative
left-turn offsets or visibility constraints contributing to left-turn
collisions.
Develop work orders or plans to include positive left-turn offset
geometry as a standard safety treatment.
Arterial/Collector Intersections
Developed, Undeveloped
2-5 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Implement positive left-turn offset improvements at prioritized
intersections and monitor safety performance to guide future
design refinements.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$250,000–$500,000
HSIP, MAG Safety
Notes for
Implementation:
Ensure COB EDS 6-3.306 C is adhered to in all new construction, consider
updating language if standard is not being met
COB/MCDOT Engineering
Consultants, Contractors
G-10
Strategy ID: 5
Action ID: 5.3
Safe System Category: Safe Roads - Intersections
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-6 months
Step 2:
3-6 months
Step 3:
1-3 months
Lead:
Support:
Reduce the risk of left-turn collisions at existing signalized intersections by continuing to remove
negative offset left-turn geometry and implement protected-only left-turn phasing at HRN and
other high crash locations. Reduce the risk of left-turn collisions at intersections by improving
driver visibility at intersection corners.
Continue to remove or relocate visual obstructions such as signage, vegetation or roadside
features at intersection corners to increase driver visibility
Steps for Implementation
COB Public Works conducts field assessments of intersections
citywide and collect resident complaint/reports to identify
locations where signage, vegetation, or roadside features obstruct
driver visibility.
Public works and maintenance crews to coordinate with owners of
property where obstacles are located (public/private) to prioritize
and schedule removal or relocation of identified visual
obstructions.
All Intersections
Developed, Undeveloped
1-2 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Implement visibility improvements at prioritized intersections and
establish a routine inspection program to maintain clear sightlines
over time.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$0–$100,000
COB Public Works/MCDOT operations or maintenance budget
Notes for
Implementation:
Update rural roadway design standards to ensure consistent application of these
safety improvements
COB/MCDOT Engineering
COB Maintenance, Consultants, Contractors
G-11
Strategy ID: 6
Action ID: 6.1
Safe System Category: Safe Roads - Intersections
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-12 months
Step 2:
3-12 months
Step 3:
12-36 months
Lead:
Support:
Reduce rear-end crashes along rural roadways by continuing to add dedicated left- and right-turn
lanes at uncontrolled access points. These treatments help manage turning movements, reduce
unexpected stops in through lanes and promote safer, more predictable traffic flow.
Continue to add dedicated left- and right-turn lanes at uncontrolled access points
Steps for Implementation
Identify arterial and collector roadway segments with high rear-end
crash rates or frequent turning conflicts at uncontrolled access
points to prioritize locations for dedicated turn lanes.
Update design standards and guidelines specifying lane
dimensions, and spacing criteria for left- and right-turn lanes at
uncontrolled access points.
Arterial/Collector Roadway Segments
Undeveloped
2-5 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Construct dedicated turn lanes at prioritized locations and monitor
crash and traffic flow improvements to guide future
implementations.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$100,000–$250,000
COB CIP, MCDOT TIP, MAG Safety
Notes for
Implementation:
COB DSD Engineering
PMO - Transportation, MCDOT Engineering
G-12
Strategy ID: 7
Action ID: 7.1
Safe System Category: Safe Roads - Segments
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
6-12 months
Step 2:
6-12 months
Step 3:
6-12 months (initially to
assess) then Ongoing
Lead:
Support:
Continue to install solar-powered dynamic speed feedback signs that alert drivers when they
exceed the posted limit, to reduce speeding and improve driver compliance on roadways on the
HRN or that have known speed-related incidents. Pair these signs with periodic, targeted
enforcement to reinforce safe driving behavior and increase awareness.
Continue to install solar-powered dynamic speed feedback signs (temporary or permanent) that
alert drivers when they exceed the posted limit
Steps for Implementation
Identify priority locations for additional dynamic speed feedback
signs based on crash data, resident complaints on file, speeding
trends from law enforcement (if available), and roadway type and
condition.
Develop standards and guidelines for the placement, design, and
operation of solar-powered speed feedback signs to ensure
consistency and effectiveness.
Arterial/Local/Collector Roadway Segments
Developed, Undeveloped
2-5 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Install new signs at prioritized locations and monitor performance
to guide future installations and refinements to the program.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$100,000-$250,000
HSIP, PW Budget
Notes for
Implementation:
Develop standards for dynamic speed feedback signs
PMO-Transportation,
COB/MCDOT Engineering
COB/MCDOT Maintenance
G-13
Strategy ID: 8
Action ID: 8.1
Safe System Category: Safe Roads - Segments
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-6 months
Step 2:
3-6 months
Step 3:
6-12 months
Lead:
Support:
Reduce single-vehicle crashes by improving roadway visibility through targeted infrastructure
upgrades. This includes continuing to install streetlights at intersections, merge points, and along
high-risk roadway corridors; and enhancing the visibility of signs, signals and pavement markings
along roadway corridors. Where needed, update engineering details, standards and guidelines to
support consistent application of these safety countermeasures.
Continue to enhance visibility of signs, signals, and pavement markings along roadway corridors
Steps for Implementation
Assess current practices for maintaining and enhancing visibility of
signs, signals, and pavement markings, and identify corridors or
intersections with the greatest need.
Develop plans for the improvements.
SR 85 and I-10 Unlighted Intersections and Roadway
Segments
ADOT Facilities
1-2 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Implement prioritized visibility improvements and monitor their
effectiveness to guide future upgrades and maintenance practices.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$0-$100,000
ADOT operations or maintenance budget, HSIP, MAG Safety
Notes for
Implementation:
Consider updating COB EDS 6-4.203 to include the FHWA Office of Safety Proven
Countermeasure "Backplates with Retroreflective Borders"
ADOT Regional Traffic,
COB DSD Engineering,
PMO-Transportation
ADOT Maintenance/COB Public Works
G-14
Strategy ID: 8
Action ID: 8.2
Safe System Category: Safe Roads - Segments
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-6 months
Step 2:
3-6 months
Step 3:
12-24 months
Lead:
Support:
Reduce single-vehicle crashes by improving roadway visibility through targeted infrastructure
upgrades. This includes continuing to install streetlights at intersections, merge points, and along
high-risk roadway corridors; and enhancing the visibility of signs, signals and pavement markings
along roadway corridors. Where needed, update engineering details, standards and guidelines to
support consistent application of these safety countermeasures.
Install streetlights at intersections and merge points
Steps for Implementation
Identify intersections, merge points, and corridors with limited
lighting or higher nighttime crash rates to prioritize locations for
new streetlight installations.
Develop plans for the improvements.
SR 85 and I-10 Unlighted Intersections and Roadway
Segments
ADOT Facilities
2-5 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Install streetlights at prioritized locations and evaluate lighting
performance and safety outcomes to guide future installations and
updates to standards.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$250,000-$500,000
HSIP, MAG Safety
Notes for
Implementation:
Update details, standards and guidelines where needed. Install lighting in dark
areas
ADOT Regional Traffic
Consultants, Contractors
G-15
Strategy ID: 9
Action ID: 9.1
Safe System Category: Safe Roads - Segments
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-6 months
Step 2:
3-6 months
Step 3:
12-24 months
Lead:
Support:
Enhance roadway traction to reduce single-vehicle crashes by applying high-friction surface
treatments at curves, intersections and other high-risk locations. These treatments increase skid
resistance and reduce stopping distances, especially under wet conditions. Update engineering
standards and guidance to ensure consistent identification and treatment of priority locations
Install high-friction pavement and rumble strips
Steps for Implementation
Identify arterial and collector roadway segments without curbs that
experience higher crash rates or traction issues to prioritize
locations for high-friction pavement and rumble strip installation.
Update engineering standards and guidelines to support consistent
application of high-friction pavement and rumble strips across
suitable roadway types.
Arterial/Collector Roadway Segments Without Curbs
Developed, Undeveloped
2-5 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Implement high-friction pavement and rumble strips at prioritized
sites and monitor performance to evaluate effectiveness and guide
future program expansion.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$0–$100,000
COB CIP, MCDOT TIP, HSIP, MAG Safety
Notes for
Implementation:
Develop details, standards, and guidelines for high-friction pavement and edge
line rumble strips.
COB/MCDOT Engineering
Consultants, Contractors
G-16
Strategy ID: 10
Action ID: 10.1
Safe System Category: Safe Roads - Segments
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-6 months
Step 2:
6-12 months
Step 3:
12-24 months
Lead:
Support:
Reduce single-vehicle, sideswipe, and head-on collisions by continuing to enhance roadway
edge definition and driver guidance. Widen edge lines to improve visibility and lane keeping,
install rumble strips and/or raised pavement markers at close spacing to alert drivers who drift
from the travel lane, and apply enhanced curve delineation such as chevrons, reflective post
panels, and curve warning pavement markings on horizontal curves. Update pavement marking
and signing standards to ensure consistent application of these countermeasures.
Continue to install enhanced delineation for horizontal curves
Steps for Implementation
Identify and prioritize arterial and collector roadway segments with
horizontal curves and a history or risk of single-vehicle, sideswipe,
or run-off-road crashes using crash and roadway geometry data.
Develop design standards and guidelines for enhanced delineation
treatments—including wider edge lines, chevrons, reflective post
panels, and curve warning pavement markings—to ensure
consistency across all projects.
Arterial/Collector Curved Roadway Segments
Undeveloped
2-5 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Implement enhanced curve delineation at prioritized locations and
incorporate these treatments into future resurfacing and roadway
improvement projects.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$0–$200,000
HSIP, MAG Safety
Notes for
Implementation:
Update MCDOT Traffic Signing Manual and Pavement Marking Manual as needed
to include additional strategies such as retroreflective strips on sign posts, curve
warning pavement markings, and chevron signs on curves. For City of Buckeye
roads, add raised reflective pavement markers (RRPMs) with longitudinal lines at
PMO-Transportation, COB
DSD Engineering, MCDOT
Engineering
PMO - Transportation, COB DSD Engineering, MCDOT
Engineering
G-17
Strategy ID: 10
Action ID: 10.2
Safe System Category: Safe Roads - Segments
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-6 months
Step 2:
6-12 months
Step 3:
12-24 months
Lead:
Support:
Reduce single-vehicle, sideswipe, and head-on collisions by continuing to enhance roadway
edge definition and driver guidance. Widen edge lines to improve visibility and lane keeping,
install rumble strips and/or raised pavement markers at close spacing to alert drivers who drift
from the travel lane, and apply enhanced curve delineation such as chevrons, reflective post
panels, and curve warning pavement markings on horizontal curves. Update pavement marking
and signing standards to ensure consistent application of these countermeasures.
Widen edge lines
Steps for Implementation
Review existing pavement marking standards and inventory current
edge line widths along arterial and collector curved roadway
segments to identify locations that do not meet desired visibility or
safety performance.
Update pavement marking standards to specify the use of wider
edge lines on arterial and collector roadways, particularly at curves
and segments with higher crash risk.
Arterial/Collector Roadway Segments Without Curbs
Undeveloped
2-5 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Implement the updated standards through routine maintenance,
resurfacing, and new roadway projects to ensure consistent
application of widened edge lines citywide.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$0–$200,000
HSIP, MAG Safety
Notes for
Implementation:
Consider adding option for edge lines wider than 4" in MCDOT Pavement Marking
Manual sect. 5. For Cityof Buckeye roads, add raised reflective pavement markers
(RRPMs) with longitudinal lines at half the distance of current Buckeye standards.
PMO-Transportation
COB DSD Engineering, MCDOT Engineering
G-18
Strategy ID: 11
Action ID: 11.1
Safe System Category: Safe Roads - Segments
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-6 months
Step 2:
6-12 months
Step 3:
12-36 months
Lead:
Support:
On roadways with good pavement quality and right of way availability, continue to improve
roadside safety by widening shoulders per Buckeye’s standard (6-3.207 G of a minimum 10-foot
shoulders) in areas without curbs and expanding the clear zone to reduce crash severity. Where
fixed objects like utility poles cannot be relocated, continue to install protection around object,
and/or add signage/object markers for better driver awareness. Update roadway design
standards to support consistent implementation.
Widen shoulders and expand the clear zone to reduce crash severity, providing 10-foot minimum
shoulders in areas without curbs. Where fixed objects like utility poles cannot be relocated,
install object markers for better driver awareness.
Steps for Implementation
Identify arterial and collector roadway segments without curbs that
have sufficient right-of-way and elevated roadside crash rates to
prioritize for shoulder widening and clear zone improvements.
Develop or update roadway design standards to formalize the use
of 10-foot shoulders and define procedures for clear zone
expansion and object marking where relocation is not feasible.
Arterial/Collector Roadway Segments Without Curbs
Undeveloped
2-5 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Implement shoulder widening and object marking improvements at
prioritized sites and monitor safety performance to evaluate
effectiveness and guide future design applications.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$1,000,000–$2,000,000
COB CIP, HSIP, MAG Safety
Notes for
Implementation:
Ensure all roadway segments are consistent with shoulder widths defined in
MCDOT Roadway Design Manual Table 5.1, clear zone requirements consistent
with MCDOT Roadway Design Manual section 5.25.4.1, and include a Safety Edge
PMO-Transportation
COB DSD Engineering, COB Maintenance
G-19
Strategy ID: 12
Action ID: 12.1
Safe System Category: Safe Roads - Segments
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-6 months
Step 2:
3-6 months
Step 3:
12-36 months
Lead:
Support:
Revise street light standard to update strategies that improve visibility and reduce nighttime
crash risk by continuing to install streetlights at city intersections, merge points, mid-block and
along roadway corridors that have a history of nighttime crashes or are on the HRN. The lighting
standard update should reflect current safety-focused placement and illumination levels while
acknowledging dark sky preservation initiatives in the Buckeye area.
Continue to install streetlights at city intersections, merge points and along roadway corridors
with a history of nighttime crashes
Steps for Implementation
Identify arterial and collector intersections and roadway segments
with a history of nighttime crashes or that are currently unlit to
prioritize locations for streetlight installation.
Revise citywide streetlight standards to balance safety-focused
placement and illumination levels with dark sky preservation
considerations.
Arterial/Collector Unlighted Intersections and Roadway
Segments
Undeveloped (City of Buckeye areas only)
2-5 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Install streetlights at prioritized locations and integrate the new
standards into future roadway design and maintenance projects to
ensure consistent application.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$250,000–$500,000
HSIP, MAG Safety
Notes for
Implementation:
Update details, standards and guidelines where needed
COB DSD Engineering
PMO-Transportation
G-20
Strategy ID: 13
Action ID: 13.1
Safe System Category: Safe Roads - Segments
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-6 months
Step 2:
6-12 months
Step 3:
3-6 months
Lead:
Support:
Improve corridor safety and traffic flow by continuing to implement access management
strategies for future roadway development, and on HRN roadway segments to reduce conflict
points and improve driver decision-making. Key strategies include managing the spacing of
intersections and access points, limiting allowable driveway movements—such as restricting to
right-in/right-out and placing driveways on intersection approach corners rather than a receiving
corner, which are associated with fewer crashes. Install raised medians to eliminate across-
roadway movements and provide dedicated turn lanes—including left-only, right-only, or two-
way left-turn lanes—to support safer turning operations.
Continue to implement access management strategies related to the spacing, location, and
allowable movements of intersections and driveways
Steps for Implementation
Review existing access management practices and identify arterial
and collector roadway segments where driveway spacing,
intersection proximity, and turning movements contribute to safety
or operational issues.
Update the City of Buckeye’s access management guidelines and
standards—specifically COB EDS 6-3.100—to include stronger
language requiring medians, right-in/right-out movements, and
intersection corner placement requirements.
Arterial/Collector Roadway Segments
Developed
1-2 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Apply updated standards to new developments and major
reconstruction projects, coordinating with property owners and
developers to ensure access design aligns with safety and mobility
objectives.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$100,000–$250,000
COB CIP
Notes for
Implementation:
Update access management guidelines and standards where needed. Consider
updating COB EDS 6-3.100 to include more language requiring medians.
COB DSD Engineering,
PMO-Transportation
Consultants, Contractors
G-21
Strategy ID: 13
Action ID: 13.2
Safe System Category: Safe Roads - Segments
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-6 months
Step 2:
6-12 months
Step 3:
12-36 months
Lead:
Support:
Improve corridor safety and traffic flow by continuing to implement access management
strategies for future roadway development, and on HRN roadway segments to reduce conflict
points and improve driver decision-making. Key strategies include managing the spacing of
intersections and access points, limiting allowable driveway movements—such as restricting to
right-in/right-out and placing driveways on intersection approach corners rather than a receiving
corner, which are associated with fewer crashes. Install raised medians to eliminate across-
roadway movements and provide dedicated turn lanes—including left-only, right-only, or two-
way left-turn lanes—to support safer turning operations.
Continue to install raised medians
Steps for Implementation
Identify arterial and collector roadway segments with frequent
turning conflicts or crash patterns that would benefit from raised
medians to reduce left-turn and crossing movements.
Update access management standards (e.g., COB EDS 6-3.100) to
include specific guidance on median design, spacing, and
placement, ensuring consistency with safety and operational
objectives.
Arterial/Collector Roadway Segments
Developed
2-5 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Incorporate raised medians into all applicable new development,
roadway reconstruction, and corridor improvement projects,
coordinating with adjacent property owners to maintain
appropriate access while improving overall corridor safety.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$1,000,000–$2,000,000
COB CIP, HSIP, MAG Safety
Notes for
Implementation:
Update access management guidelines and standards where needed. Consider
updating COB EDS 6-3.100 to include more language requiring medians.
PMO-Transportation
Consultants, Contractors
G-22
Strategy ID: 14
Action ID: 14.1
Safe System Category: Safe Roads - VRU
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-6 months
Step 2:
6-12 months
Step 3:
12-36 months
Lead:
Support:
At intersections and roadway segments with high pedestrian and bicyclist activity, continue to
implement self-enforcing roadway designs and features to naturally slow vehicle speeds and
reduce crash risk. Update design standards (e.g., COB EDS 6-3 Table 1) and create a toolbox of
appropriate strategies, by roadway type, using resources such as the NACTO Urban Street
Design Guide to align with Safe System principles.
Continue to install self-enforcing road features
Steps for Implementation
Identify all road intersections and roadway segments with high
pedestrian and bicyclist activity or documented speeding issues to
prioritize locations for self-enforcing roadway designs.
Develop design standards and a traffic calming toolbox referencing
resources such as the NACTO Urban Street Design Guide and
AASHTO Bike Design Guide to guide consistent application of
treatments like roundabouts, bulb-outs, and chicanes. Build on
self-enforcing features and design standards already in
development.
All Intersections and Roadway Segments
Developed
2-5 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Implement pilot projects incorporating self-enforcing features at
prioritized locations and evaluate safety and operational outcomes
to inform broader application. Build on self-enforcing features and
design standards already in development.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$2,000,000-$4,000,000
HSIP, MAG Safety
Notes for
Implementation:
Install roundabouts at local or possibly collector roads (COB EDS 6-3.600) or
traffic calming, develop details (chicanes, bulb-outs). Refer to NACTO Urban
Street Design Guide to develop details. Toolbox for traffic calming measures for
certain roadway types.
PMO-Transportation
Consultants, Contractors, COB Public Works, COB DSD
Engineering
G-23
Strategy ID: 14
Action ID: 14.2
Safe System Category: Safe Roads - VRU
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-6 months
Step 2:
3-6 months
Step 3:
6-12 months
Lead:
Support:
At intersections and roadway segments with high pedestrian and bicyclist activity, continue to
implement self-enforcing roadway designs and features to naturally slow vehicle speeds and
reduce crash risk. Update design standards (e.g., COB EDS 6-3 Table 1) and create a toolbox of
appropriate strategies, by roadway type, using resources such as the NACTO Urban Street
Design Guide to align with Safe System principles.
Set lower speed limits in areas with high pedestrian/bicycle activity, supported by an engineering
study and implement design elements to support posted speed limits.
Steps for Implementation
Identify all road corridors with high pedestrian and bicyclist activity
or crash history to prioritize areas for context-sensitive speed
management.
Determine target operating speeds and their associated lower
speed limits by roadway and land use context in pedestrian- and
bicycle-priority areas through engineering studies.
Arterial/Collector Intersections and Roadway Segments in
Areas of High Pedestrian/Bicyclist Activity
Developed
1-2 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Implement roadway redesigns to align with target operating speeds
and revised speed limits at prioritized locations. Monitor safety and
operational outcomes to guide future applications.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$2,000,000-$4,000,000
COB CIP, COB operations or maintenance budget, MAG Safety Funding
Notes for
Implementation:
Consider updating COB EDS 6-3 Table 1 to different design criteria for high
pedestrian and bicyclist volumes
PMO-Transportation, COB
Public Works
COB DSD Engineering
G-24
Strategy ID: 15
Action ID: 15.1
Safe System Category: Safe Roads - VRU
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-6 months
Step 2:
3-6 months
Step 3:
3-6 months
Lead:
Support:
ADOT to update the typical cross-section guidance in Section 306 of the Roadway Design
Guidelines (RDG) to better reflect the needs of all users in different land use contexts.
Specifically, Section 306.4 'Urban Cross-Sections' should be revised to include separate cross-
section templates for Urban, Suburban and Rural Areas. This update should align with the ADOT
Complete Transportation Guidebook, which provides context-sensitive design principles that
accommodate all modes, including walking, biking and transit. Incorporating these distinctions
will help ensure roadway designs are appropriate for surrounding land use and safety objectives.
ADOT to update typical cross-section guidance in Section 306 of the Roadway Design Guidelines
(RDG) to better reflect the needs of all users in different land use contexts.
Steps for Implementation
Review existing Section 306 cross-section templates and identify
gaps related to multimodal accommodation and land use context
sensitivity.
Develop and propose updated cross-section templates for Urban,
Suburban, and Rural contexts that align with the ADOT Complete
Transportation Guidebook and incorporate facilities for all modes.
Arterial Segments
ADOT Facilities
1-2 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Integrate the revised templates into the ADOT Roadway Design
Guidelines through the formal update process, ensuring
consistency across design projects for arterial segments
statewide.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$0–$100,000
ADOT operations or maintenance budget
Notes for
Implementation:
Context-sensitive cross-sections are particularly important at intersections where
multiple modes can be present and cross travel paths
ADOT Regional Traffic
ADOT Standards
G-25
Strategy ID: 16
Action ID: 16.1
Safe System Category: Safe Roads - VRU
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
6-12 months
Step 2:
6-12 months
Step 3:
12-36 months initially, then
ongoing
Lead:
Support:
Improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists by increasing the number of signalized crossing
opportunities, on roadways with speed limits at 35 mph and over, if identified for future fixed
route transit, has an existing bicycle facility, is identified for a future bicycle facility, and/or
connects to an off-street pedestrian/bicycle facility. Install signalized crossings—such as full
traffic signals or pedestrian hybrid beacons (HAWK/PHBs), or construct grade-separated
crossings (bridges/overpasses or underpasses) to eliminate conflicts.
If warranted, provide more signalized crossings (traffic signal or HAWK/PHB) on arterials and
higher-speed collectors and RRFBs on lower-speed collectors
Steps for Implementation
Conduct a citywide assessment to identify arterial and collector
corridors that intersect with high pedestrian and bicycle
corridors—especially those with existing or planned bicycle
facilities, future fixed-route transit, or connections to off-street
trails.
Prioritize candidate locations for new crossings (full signals, PHBs,
RRFBs, or grade-separated facilities) based on crash history, traffic
speeds, pedestrian/bike volumes, and spacing between existing
crossings.
All roads, Unsignalized Intersections, Midblock Crossings
Developed
2-5 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Develop and implement a phased installation program, beginning
with high-priority sites, and update City design standards to
formalize warrant criteria and preferred crossing treatments for
arterial and collector roadways.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$500,000–$1,000,000
HSIP, MAG Safety
Notes for
Implementation:
Update details, standards and guidelines where needed. Consider adding
warrant/design standards to COB EDS 6-4 for HAWK/PHB installation. Refer to
UDOT 2023 Std. Dwg. SL 6F for midblock crossing detail development.
PMO-Transportation, MAG
Consultants, Contractors, and COB DSD Engineering
G-26
Strategy ID: 16
Action ID: 16.2
Safe System Category: Safe Roads - VRU
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
6-12 months
Step 2:
6-12 months
Step 3:
12-36 months
Lead:
Support:
Improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists by increasing the number of signalized crossing
opportunities, on roadways with speed limits at 35 mph and over, if identified for future fixed route
transit, has an existing bicycle facility, is identified for a future bicycle facility, and/or connects to an off-
street pedestrian/bicycle facility. Install signalized crossings—such as full traffic signals or pedestrian
hybrid beacons (HAWK/PHBs), or construct grade-separated crossings (bridges/overpasses or
underpasses) to eliminate conflicts.
On roadways with speed limits 30 mph and under, consider installing rectangular rapid flashing
beacons (RRFBs) if identified for future fixed route transit, has an existing bicycle facility, is identified for
a future bicycle facility, and/or connects to an off-street pedestrian/bicycle facility.
Construct grade-separated crossings such as pedestrian overpasses or underpasses to eliminate
conflicts with vehicle traffic and ensure safe access across wide or high-speed corridors
Steps for Implementation
Identify arterial roadway segments with high pedestrian and
bicyclist activity, high traffic volumes, or wide/high-speed
crossings that would benefit from grade-separated facilities.
Develop design standards, guidelines, and project prioritization
criteria for pedestrian overpasses and underpasses to ensure
consistent and context-appropriate application.
Arterial Roadway Segments With High Pedestrian/Bicyclist
Activity
Developed
5+ years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Implement grade-separated crossings at prioritized locations and
monitor usage and safety outcomes to guide future expansions of
the program in an ongoing effort.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$5,000,000–$10,000,000
COB CIP, ADOT Transportation Alternatives (TA)
Notes for
Implementation:
COB DSD Engineering
Consultants, Contractors
G-27
Strategy ID: 17
Action ID: 17.1
Safe System Category: Safe Roads - VRU
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-12 months
Step 2:
3-12 months
Step 3:
6-12 months
Lead:
Support:
Improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety at signalized intersections and midblock crossings by
enhancing visibility and prioritizing pedestrian movement. Enhance the visibility of signs, signals,
and pavement markings by updating standards (e.g., COB EDS 6-4.203) to include measures
such as backplates with retroreflective borders. Continue to install dual lighting at each corner
of wide intersections and continue to provide overhead lighting at midblock pedestrian and
bicycle crossings to ensure visibility at night and during low-light conditions. Continue to
implement leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs) at signals in areas with high pedestrian activities,
and intersections that are wide. Update design guidelines to include roadway mid-block
crossing applications and guidance on placement.
Continue to install dual lighting at each corner of wide intersections
Steps for Implementation
Identify arterial and collector intersections that are wide, unlit, or
have high pedestrian and bicyclist activity to prioritize locations for
dual corner lighting.
Develop or update design guidelines specifying dual lighting
placement, intensity, and mounting standards to ensure
consistent application across intersections.
Arterial/Collector Unlighted Intersections and Roadway
Segments
Developed
2-5 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Install dual lighting at prioritized intersections where single light
does not provide enough lighting per standards, and monitor
nighttime visibility and safety performance to inform future
expansions of the program.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$250,000–$500,000
COB CIP, MAG Safety, ADOT TA
Notes for
Implementation:
COB DSD Engineering
Consultants, Contractors
G-28
Strategy ID: 17
Action ID: 17.2
Safe System Category: Safe Roads - VRU
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-12 months
Step 2:
3-12 months
Step 3:
6-12 months
Lead:
Support:
Improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety at signalized intersections and midblock crossings by
enhancing visibility and prioritizing pedestrian movement. Enhance the visibility of signs, signals,
and pavement markings by updating standards (e.g., COB EDS 6-4.203) to include measures
such as backplates with retroreflective borders. Continue to install dual lighting at each corner
of wide intersections and continue to provide overhead lighting at midblock pedestrian and
bicycle crossings to ensure visibility at night and during low-light conditions. Continue to
implement leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs) at signals in areas with high pedestrian activities,
and intersections that are wide. Update design guidelines to include roadway mid-block
crossing applications and guidance on placement.
Continue to enhance visibility of signs, signals, and pavement markings at intersections
Steps for Implementation
Identify arterial and collector intersections and roadway segments
where signs, signals, or pavement markings have limited nighttime
or low-light visibility to prioritize locations for retroreflective
backplates.
Develop or update engineering standards and design guidelines to
specify the use of backplates with retroreflective borders and
ensure consistent application across applicable locations.
Arterial/Collector Unlighted Intersections and Roadway
Segments
Developed
2-5 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Install enhanced backplates at prioritized sites and monitor
visibility improvements and safety outcomes to guide future
expansions of the program.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$100,000–$250,000
HSIP, MAG Safety, COB operations or maintenance budget
Notes for
Implementation:
Consider updating COB EDS 6-4.203 to include the FHWA Office of Safety Proven
Countermeasure "Backplates with Retroreflective Borders". For pavement
markings, consider adding raised reflective pavement markers (RRPMs) with
longitudinal lines at half the distance of current Buckeye standards.
COB DSD Engineering,
PMO-Transportation
Consultants, Contractors, and COB Public Works
G-29
Strategy ID: 17
Action ID: 17.3
Safe System Category: Safe Roads - VRU
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-12 months
Step 2:
3-12 months
Step 3:
6-12 months
Lead:
Support:
Improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety at signalized intersections and midblock crossings by
enhancing visibility and prioritizing pedestrian movement. Enhance the visibility of signs, signals,
and pavement markings by updating standards (e.g., COB EDS 6-4.203) to include measures
such as backplates with retroreflective borders. Continue to install dual lighting at each corner
of wide intersections and continue to provide overhead lighting at midblock pedestrian and
bicycle crossings to ensure visibility at night and during low-light conditions. Continue to
implement leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs) at signals in areas with high pedestrian activities,
and intersections that are wide. Update design guidelines to include roadway mid-block
crossing applications and guidance on placement.
Continue to install overhead lighting at midblock pedestrian and bicycle crossings
Steps for Implementation
Identify midblock pedestrian and bicycle crossings on arterial and
collector roadways that are unlit or have low visibility, prioritizing
locations with high pedestrian/bicyclist activity or crash history.
Develop design standards and guidelines for overhead lighting at
midblock crossings, including fixture type, mounting height, and
illumination levels to ensure consistent application.
Arterial/Collector Unlighted Intersections and Roadway
Segments
Developed
2-5 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Install overhead lighting at prioritized midblock crossings and
monitor nighttime visibility and safety performance to guide future
installations.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$100,000–$250,000
COB CIP, MAG Safety, ADOT TA
Notes for
Implementation:
COB DSD Engineering,
PMO-Transportation
Consultants, Contractors, and COB Public Works
G-30
Strategy ID: 17
Action ID: 17.4
Safe System Category: Safe Roads - VRU
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-6 months
Step 2:
3-6 months
Step 3:
6-12 months
Lead:
Support:
Improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety at signalized intersections and midblock crossings by
enhancing visibility and prioritizing pedestrian movement. Enhance the visibility of signs, signals,
and pavement markings by updating standards (e.g., COB EDS 6-4.203) to include measures
such as backplates with retroreflective borders. Continue to install dual lighting at each corner
of wide intersections and continue to provide overhead lighting at midblock pedestrian and
bicycle crossings to ensure visibility at night and during low-light conditions. Continue to
implement leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs) at signals in areas with high pedestrian activities,
and intersections that are wide. Update design guidelines to include roadway mid-block
crossing applications and guidance on placement.
Continue to provide leading pedestrian intervals in areas with heavy pedestrian activity
Steps for Implementation
Identify arterial and collector signalized intersections with high
pedestrian and bicyclist activity to prioritize locations for
implementing leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs).
Develop signal timing standards and design guidelines for LPIs,
including duration, coordination with vehicular phases, and
applicability criteria.
Arterial/Collector Signalized Intersections With High
Pedestrian/Bicyclist Activity
Developed
2-5 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Implement LPIs at prioritized intersections and monitor pedestrian
safety and signal performance to evaluate effectiveness and guide
future applications.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$0–$100,000
MAG Safety, MAG TSOP, HSIP
Notes for
Implementation:
Update details, standards and guidelines where needed
PMO-Transportation
COB Maintenance
G-31
Strategy ID: 18
Action ID: 18.1
Safe System Category: Safe Roads - VRU
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-6 months
Step 2:
3-6 months
Step 3:
12-36 months
Lead:
Support:
improve safety for people walking and biking and expand transportation options by using the
USDOT FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide (2019) and AASHTO Bicycle Design Guide to upgrade
existing bike facilities to the preferred bikeway type per roadway volume and speed, and update
engineering details, standards and guidelines as needed to ensure consistent and context-
sensitive design as the bicycle network is built out per the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
Provide shared-use paths or protected bike lanes where appropriate instead of striped bike lanes
for arterials and higher-speed collectors
Steps for Implementation
Identify arterial and collector roadway segments with existing or
planned bike lanes that exceed preferred speed or volume
thresholds per the FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide (2019) and
AASHTO Bicycle Design Guide.
Update City of Buckeye design details and guidelines to make
shared-use paths or protected bike lanes the default facility type
for arterials and higher-speed collectors.
Arterial/Collector Roadway Segments
Developed
1-2 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Incorporate shared-use paths or protected bike lanes into all
applicable major and principal arterials and reconstruction
projects, ensuring consistency with the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan, and with Parks and Recreation Master Plan and
coordination with regional bike network connections.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$1,000,000–$2,000,000
COB CIP, HSIP, MAG Safety, MAG Active Transportation, ADOT TA
Notes for
Implementation:
Update details, standards and guidelines where needed. Refer to latest AASHTO
Bicycle Design Guide and NACTO Urban Street Design Guide to develop
standards.
PMO-Transportation
COB DSD Civil Engineering, Consultants, Contractors
G-32
Strategy ID: 19
Action ID: 19.1
Safe System Category: Safe Roads - VRU
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-6 months
Step 2:
6-12 months
Step 3:
1-2 years
Lead:
Support:
Continue to participate in the regional Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program to improve safety and
encourage walking and biking for students traveling to and from school. Incorporate infrastructure
improvements such as crosswalks, sidewalks and traffic calming near schools, and support them with
education, encouragement and enforcement strategies. Coordinate closely with school districts, to
identify safety concerns and prioritize improvements. Use the Arizona School Siting Guidelines, City of
Buckeye Engineering Design Standards, and school development agreements to ensure new and
existing schools are planned with sufficient on-site queuing and multimodal access. Implement
reduced speed in school zones to provide consistent, predictable speed control during school travel
times. Update Buckeye's policies and design standards to support the long-term success of SRTS
initiatives.
Continue to participate in the regional SRTS program and implement reduced speed school zones to
provide consistent, predictable speed control during school travel times
Steps for Implementation
Identify all roadways near schools and review existing school zone
speed limits, signage, and enforcement practices to prioritize areas
for consistent speed control enhancements.
Update local policies and guidelines to standardize school zone
speed limits, signage, and timing, ensuring predictable and
enforceable speed control during school travel periods.
All Roadways Near Schools
Developed
1-2 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Implement revised school zone speed limits citywide, coordinate
with law enforcement for consistent enforcement, and monitor
speed compliance and crash data to guide future improvements.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$0–$100,000
COB CIP, MAG Active Transportation, ADOT TA
Notes for
Implementation:
Coordinate closely with school districts, law enforcement and local agencies to identify
safety concerns and prioritize improvements
PMO-Transportation
Schools, COB Police
G-33
Strategy ID: 19
Action ID: 19.2
Safe System Category: Safe Roads - VRU
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-6 months
Step 2:
3-6 months
Step 3:
6-12 months
Lead:
Support:
Continue to participate in the regional Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program to improve safety and
encourage walking and biking for students traveling to and from school. Incorporate infrastructure
improvements such as crosswalks, sidewalks and traffic calming near schools, and support them with
education, encouragement and enforcement strategies. Coordinate closely with school districts, to
identify safety concerns and prioritize improvements. Use the Arizona School Siting Guidelines, City of
Buckeye Engineering Design Standards, and school development agreements to ensure new and
existing schools are planned with sufficient on-site queuing and multimodal access. Implement
reduced speed in school zones to provide consistent, predictable speed control during school travel
times. Update Buckeye's policies and design standards to support the long-term success of SRTS
initiatives.
Use the Arizona School Siting Guidelines, City of Buckeye Engineering Design Standards, and school
development agreements to ensure new and existing schools are planned with sufficient on-site
queuing and multimodal access
Steps for Implementation
Review proposed and existing school sites in coordination with
school districts, planning staff, and local agencies to identify
opportunities to improve on-site queuing and multimodal access
per the Arizona School Siting Guidelines.
Update school development agreements and local design
standards to require adequate on-site queuing, pedestrian and
bicycle access, and multimodal connectivity for all new and
redeveloped school sites.
All Roadways Near Schools
Developed
2-5 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Implement the updated requirements for all applicable school
projects and monitor functionality, safety, and multimodal use to
guide future site planning and improvements.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$0–$750,000
COB operations or maintenance budget
Notes for
Implementation:
Coordinate closely with school districts, law enforcement and local agencies to identify
safety concerns and prioritize improvements
Schools
Schools
G-34
Strategy ID: 19
Action ID: 19.3
Safe System Category: Safe Roads - VRU
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-6 months
Step 2:
3-6 months
Step 3:
3-6 months
Lead:
Support:
Continue to participate in the regional Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program to improve safety and
encourage walking and biking for students traveling to and from school. Incorporate infrastructure
improvements such as crosswalks, sidewalks and traffic calming near schools, and support them with
education, encouragement and enforcement strategies. Coordinate closely with school districts, to
identify safety concerns and prioritize improvements. Use the Arizona School Siting Guidelines, City of
Buckeye Engineering Design Standards, and school development agreements to ensure new and
existing schools are planned with sufficient on-site queuing and multimodal access. Implement
reduced speed in school zones to provide consistent, predictable speed control during school travel
times. Update Buckeye's policies and design standards to support the long-term success of SRTS
initiatives.
Continue to participate in the regional SRTS program to implement education, encouragement and
enforcement strategies related to travel to and from school
Steps for Implementation
Coordinate with school districts, law enforcement, and local
agencies to identify priority schools and student populations for
targeted education, encouragement, and enforcement initiatives.
Develop programs and campaigns that include classroom
education, community events, walking/biking challenges, and
enforcement strategies to promote safe travel to and from school.
All Roadways Near Schools
Developed
1-2 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Implement the programs at prioritized schools, monitor
participation and safety outcomes, and refine strategies to
enhance effectiveness and support long-term Safe Routes to
School goals.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$100,000–$250,000
MAG Active Transportation, ADOT TA, AZ GOHS
Notes for
Implementation:
Coordinate closely with school districts, law enforcement and local agencies to identify
safety concerns and prioritize improvements
Schools
PMO-Transportation, COB Police
G-35
Strategy ID: 19
Action ID: 19.4
Safe System Category: Safe Roads - VRU
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-6 months
Step 2:
6-12 months
Step 3:
12-36 months
Lead:
Support:
Continue to participate in the regional Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program to improve safety and
encourage walking and biking for students traveling to and from school. Incorporate infrastructure
improvements such as crosswalks, sidewalks and traffic calming near schools, and support them with
education, encouragement and enforcement strategies. Coordinate closely with school districts, to
identify safety concerns and prioritize improvements. Use the Arizona School Siting Guidelines, City of
Buckeye Engineering Design Standards, and school development agreements to ensure new and existing
schools are planned with sufficient on-site queuing and multimodal access. Implement reduced speed in
school zones to provide consistent, predictable speed control during school travel times. Update
Buckeye's policies and design standards to support the long-term success of SRTS initiatives.
Continue to participate in the regional SRTS program to implement infrastructure improvements such as
crosswalks, sidewalks and traffic calming near schools
Steps for Implementation
Coordinate with school districts, law enforcement, and local
agencies to identify school areas with the highest safety risks or
gaps in pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.
Develop design plans for crosswalks, sidewalks, and traffic
calming measures tailored to each school site, ensuring alignment
with local standards and multimodal safety objectives.
All Roadways Near Schools
Developed
2-5 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Construct prioritized infrastructure improvements near schools
and monitor usage and crash data to evaluate effectiveness and
guide future enhancements.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$250,000–$750,000
COB CIP, MAG Active Transportation, ADOT TA
Notes for
Implementation:
Coordinate closely with school districts, law enforcement and local agencies to identify
safety concerns and prioritize improvements
Schools
Schools, Consultants, and Contractors
G-36
Strategy ID: 19
Action ID: 19.5
Safe System Category: Safe Roads - VRU
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-6 months
Step 2:
6-12 months
Step 3:
12-36 months
Lead:
Support:
Continue to participate in the regional Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program to improve safety and
encourage walking and biking for students traveling to and from school. Incorporate infrastructure
improvements such as crosswalks, sidewalks and traffic calming near schools, and support them with
education, encouragement and enforcement strategies. Coordinate closely with school districts, to
identify safety concerns and prioritize improvements. Use the Arizona School Siting Guidelines, City of
Buckeye Engineering Design Standards, and school development agreements to ensure new and
existing schools are planned with sufficient on-site queuing and multimodal access. Implement
reduced speed in school zones to provide consistent, predictable speed control during school travel
times. Update Buckeye's policies and design standards to support the long-term success of SRTS
initiatives.
Continue to participate in the regional SRTS program to implement local solutions
Steps for Implementation
Coordinate with school districts, law enforcement, and local
agencies to assess school travel patterns, identify safety concerns,
and prioritize schools for program implementation. Assign a City of
Buckeye staff member to be the SRTS coordinator.
Participate in regional Safe Routes to School program that
combines infrastructure improvements, education,
encouragement, and enforcement strategies tailored to each
school’s needs.
All Roadways Near Schools
Developed
2-5 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Continue the SRTS program at prioritized schools, monitor
participation, safety outcomes, and travel behavior, and adjust
strategies to ensure long-term program success and sustainability.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$0–$100,000
COB CIP, MAG Active Transportation, ADOT TA
Notes for
Implementation:
Coordinate closely with school districts, law enforcement and local agencies to identify
safety concerns and prioritize improvements
Schools, MAG
Consultants, Contractors
G-37
Strategy ID: 20
Action ID: 20.1
Safe System Category: Safe Users
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-6 months
Step 2:
3-6 months
Step 3:
1-3 months
Lead:
Support:
Promote helmet use and safe riding practices for motorcyclists through ongoing engagement
campaigns while reinforcing safety through the continued enforcement of existing laws, including
youth motorcycle helmet requirements.
COB Communications,
COB Police
PMO-Transportation; ADOT Communications; DPS;
MCDOT Communications, Engineering, and Planning;
MCSO
Identify best practices for education campaign and how best to
pair them with a correlated enforcement campaign. Identify
partners who will provide input on development of the education
campaign and correlated enforcement campaign.
Develop education campaign content and materials. Determine
method/media for distributing education campaign materials.
Coordinate with law enforcement on timeframe and talking points
for correlated enforcement campaign.
Launch education campaign focused on increasing helmet use and
safe motorcycle riding practices in conjunction with correlated
enforcement effort.
Steps for Implementation
Notes for
Implementation:
Potential partners could include Team Arizona, Ride Arizona, or Motorcycle Safety
Foundation
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$0-$250,000
Arizona Governor's Office of Highway Safety (AZ GOHS), Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP)
Implement a targeted education campaign to increase motorcycle helmet use and safe riding
practices
All Roadways
Developed, Undeveloped, ADOT Facilities
1-2 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
G-38
Strategy ID: 21
Action ID: 21.1
Safe System Category: Safe Users
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-6 months
Step 2:
3-6 months
Step 3:
1-3 months
Lead:
Support:
Address risky driver behaviors by continuing to develop and implement targeted education
campaigns focused on reducing distracted driving, increasing seatbelt use, and preventing
impaired driving. These campaigns should combine public outreach through media and events
with focused police enforcement (Strategy #24) to influence safer driving habits and reduce
crash risk.
Continue Buckeye's targeted education campaigns for: increase seatbelt use, impaired driving,
and distracted driving.
Steps for Implementation
Identify best practices for education campaign and how best to
pair them with a correlated enforcement campaign. Identify
partners who will provide input on development of the education
campaign and correlated enforcement campaign.
Develop education campaign content and materials. Determine
method/media for distributing education campaign materials.
Coordinate with law enforcement on timeframe and talking points
for correlated enforcement campaign.
All Roadways
Developed, Undeveloped, ADOT Facilities
1-2 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Launch education campaign focused on increasing seatbelt use in
conjunction with correlated enforcement effort.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$0-$250,000
AZ GOHS, HSIP
Notes for
Implementation:
These campaigns should combine public outreach through media and events with
focused police enforcement to influence safer driving habits and reduce crash risk
COB Communications,
COB Police
PMO-Transportation , ADOT Communications, DPS,
MCDOT Communications, MCSO
G-39
Strategy ID: 22
Action ID: 22.1
Safe System Category: Safe Users
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
1-3 months
Step 2:
1-3 months
Step 3:
Ongoing
Lead:
Support:
Implement Surge Enforcement Operations (intensified, short-term enforcement operations that
can include multiple agencies and departments (enforcement, education, public involvement,
communications, etc.) designed to curb dangerous driving through increased education,
awareness, officer presence and high-visibility traffic stops) twice a year at key locations
connected to the High Risk Network (HRN).
Implement Surge Enforcement Operations twice a year at key locations connected to the High
Risk Network (HRN)
Steps for Implementation
Evaluate current surge enforcement practices and identify priority
HRN locations and resource needs to support increased
enforcement frequency.
Develop an enforcement schedule in coordination with COB Police
and partner agencies, aligning operations with high-crash periods
and locations.
All Roadways with HRN
General
1-3 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Launch bi-annual surge enforcement operations, document
outcomes, and adjust strategies based on performance and
observed safety impacts.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$0-$100,000
AZ GOHS, HSIP
Notes for
Implementation:
Implementation is contingent on available funding on a year-to-year basis.
COB Police
PMO-Transportation; DPS; MCDOT Communications,
Engineering, and Planning; MCSO
G-40
Strategy ID: 23
Action ID: 23.1
Safe System Category: Safe Users
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-6 months
Step 2:
6-12 months
Step 3:
1-3 months
Lead:
Support:
Promote safer walking, biking, micromobility, and electric-bikes (e-bikes) use through targeted
education and enforcement campaigns. Continue to conduct outreach through media, schools and
community events to increase awareness of local rules, traffic laws and safe riding practices.
Support these efforts with physical deterrents to reduce unsafe speeds on shared-use paths, youth
helmet ordinances and focused law enforcement engagement in high-activity areas to encourage
compliance and reduce crash risk.
Continue to implement paid and earned media campaigns (electronic, print, radio, and broadcast)
to promote public awareness of pedestrian and bicyclist safety to target audiences.
Steps for Implementation
Coordinate with Buckeye Police Department, local schools, and
community organizations to identify key audiences and high-
activity areas for targeted safety messaging related to walking,
biking, and micromobility use.
Develop and launch paid and earned media campaigns across
electronic, print, radio, and broadcast platforms to promote
pedestrian and bicyclist safety, emphasizing local crash trends and
Safe System principles. Education campaigns could include
promoting Bike/Walk to School/Work Day or building a Traffic
Garden for kids to learn the rules of the road.
All Roadways
Developed
1-2 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Evaluate campaign effectiveness through community feedback
and crash data monitoring, and expand educational content or
enforcement focus areas as needed to strengthen future outreach
and policy development.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$0–$250,000
AZ GOHS, HSIP
Notes for
Implementation:
Perform outreach through education media campaigns and at City events.
Coordinate with focused enforcement.
COB Communications,
PMO-Transportation
COB Police
G-41
Strategy ID: 23
Action ID: 23.2
Safe System Category: Safe Users
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-6 months
Step 2:
6-12 months
Step 3:
12-24 months
Lead:
Support:
Pilot and monitor installations at select high-use or high-risk
locations, assess effectiveness and user feedback, and refine
standards before expanding to other shared-use paths citywide.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$0–$100,000
COB CIP, MAG Active Transportation, ADOT TA
Notes for
Implementation:
COB Police
PMO-Transportation
Promote safer walking, biking, micromobility, and electric-bikes (e-bikes) use through targeted
education and enforcement campaigns. Continue to conduct outreach through media, schools
and community events to increase awareness of local rules, traffic laws and safe riding
practices. Support these efforts with physical deterrents to reduce unsafe speeds on shared-use
paths, youth helmet ordinances and focused law enforcement engagement in high-activity areas
to encourage compliance and reduce crash risk.
Install physical deterrents to reduce unsafe speeds on shared-use paths
Steps for Implementation
Identify shared-use paths and trail segments with documented
speeding issues or near-miss incidents through community
reports, field observations, or crash data.
Develop design standards for physical deterrents, like speed
tables, bollards, chicanes, or centerline striping to reduce
excessive speeds while maintaining accessibility and comfort for
all users.
Shared Use Paths
Developed
2-5 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
G-42
Strategy ID: 23
Action ID: 23.3
Safe System Category: Safe Users
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
6-12 months
Step 2:
6-12 months
Step 3:
1-3 months
Lead:
Support:
Promote safer walking, biking, micromobility, and electric-bikes (e-bikes) use through targeted
education and enforcement campaigns. Continue to conduct outreach through media, schools
and community events to increase awareness of local rules, traffic laws and safe riding
practices. Support these efforts with physical deterrents to reduce unsafe speeds on shared-use
paths, youth helmet ordinances and focused law enforcement engagement in high-activity areas
to encourage compliance and reduce crash risk.
Pass a youth bike and e-bike helmet ordinance
Steps for Implementation
Research best practices and legal frameworks from peer cities
regarding youth helmet ordinances for bicycles, scooters, and
other micromobility devices.
Draft a citywide youth helmet ordinance, coordinating with legal
counsel, public health officials, and community stakeholders to
ensure clarity, enforceability, and public support.
All Roadways
Developed
2-5 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Adopt and implement the ordinance, paired with public education
campaigns and enforcement strategies, and monitor compliance
and safety outcomes to guide future policy updates.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$0–$100,000
COB operations or maintenance budget
Notes for
Implementation:
COB Police
COB City Council, PMO-Transportation
G-43
Strategy ID: 24
Action ID: 24.1
Safe System Category: Safe Users
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-6 months
Step 2:
3-6 months
Step 3:
1-3 months
Lead:
Support:
Continue and expand proactive enforcement of traffic laws to deter dangerous driving behaviors
and reinforce safe roadway use. Focus enforcement efforts on high-risk locations and
violations—such as speeding, failure to yield and distracted driving to reduce crash risk and
improve compliance. Align enforcement with safety priorities and complement education
(Strategy #21) and engineering strategies.
Continue to conduct proactive enforcement of traffic laws
Steps for Implementation
Identify high-risk locations and prevalent traffic violations along the
High-Risk Network (HRN) to prioritize enforcement efforts.
Coordinate with Buckeye Police Department and other relevant
agencies to develop targeted enforcement plans aligned with
safety priorities and education campaigns.
All Roadways and Intersections on HRN
Developed
1-2 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Conduct proactive enforcement at prioritized locations, monitor
outcomes, and adjust enforcement strategies to maximize
compliance and crash reduction.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$0–$100,000
AZ GOHS, HSIP
Notes for
Implementation:
Focus enforcement efforts on high-risk locations and violations—such as
speeding, failure to yield and distracted driving to reduce crash risk and improve
compliance. Align enforcement with safety priorities and complement education
and engineering strategies.
COB Police
PMO-Transportation
G-44
Strategy ID: 25
Action ID: 25.1
Safe System Category: Safe Speeds
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-6 months
Step 2:
3-6 months
Step 3:
3-6 months
Lead:
Support:
Continue to refine yellow and all-red clearance intervals at all existing and new traffic signals to
ensure drivers have adequate time to react and stop safely.
Continue to refine yellow and all-red clearance intervals at all existing and new traffic signals
Steps for Implementation
Conduct a systemwide review of all signalized intersections in
Buckeye to assess existing yellow and all-red clearance intervals
for consistency and compliance with current engineering
standards.
Develop citywide signal timing policies and procedures to establish
standardized methods for calculating and applying updated
clearance intervals.
All Signalized Intersections
Developed
1-2 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Implement revised yellow and all-red intervals across all
intersections and monitor performance to ensure improved safety
and intersection efficiency.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$0–$100,000
MAG Safety, MAG TSOP, HSIP
Notes for
Implementation:
PMO-Transportation
COB Maintenance
G-45
Strategy ID: 26
Action ID: 26.1
Safe System Category: Safe Speeds
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-6 months
Step 2:
3-6 months
Step 3:
6-9 months
Lead:
Support:
Adopt and apply the new speed limit guidance to all roadways and
monitor outcomes to evaluate effectiveness and support future
policy refinements.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$0–$100,000
ADOT operations or maintenance budget
Notes for
Implementation:
Speed limits on State facilities are subject to State statutes and federal
guidelines.
ADOT Regional Traffic
Consultants, Contractors
Utilize context-appropriate vehicle speed limits at intersections through policy, operations,
design, education, and enforcement. Policy efforts can include speed setting policies that
incorporate roadway function as well as environment, land uses, user types, and overall context
similar to complete streets. A complete street design encourages safe driving habits and
reduces excessive speeds.
Develop speed limit setting guidance in accordance with Arizona state statutes
Steps for Implementation
Review existing speed limit policies and collect roadway context
data including land use, roadway function, and user types to inform
the development of a comprehensive speed management
framework.
Develop speed limit setting guidance that aligns with Complete
Streets and Safe System principles, ensuring consistency across
roadway types and contexts.
All Roadways
ADOT Facilities
1-2 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
G-46
Strategy ID: 27
Action ID: 27.1
Safe System Category: Safe Speeds
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
n/a
Step 2:
n/a
Step 3:
n/a
Lead:
Support:
Reduce travel lane widths to encourage slower driving speed through a variance request upon
appropriate engineering evaluation and justification.
Continue to allow vehicle lane widths under 12 ft. through a variance request
Steps for Implementation
Continue evaluating roadway projects for reduced lane widths
based on context and safety performance.
n/a
Arterial/Collector Intersections and Roadway Segments
Developed
1-2 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
n/a
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$0–$100,000
Public Works Budget
Notes for
Implementation:
12' lane width standard is in COB EDS 6-3.202
PMO-Transportation
Consultants, Contractors, COB DSD Engineering, and
COB Maintenance
G-47
Strategy ID: 28
Action ID: 28.1
Safe System Category: Safe Speeds
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
1-2 years
Step 2:
1-2 years
Step 3:
1-2 years
Lead:
Support:
Conduct a study to test the target speed-setting process on four corridors with high potential
safety risks (e.g., HRN, high pedestrian or bicycle volumes, frequent driveways, on-street
parking, or above-average KSI crash history). Use the 2025 FHWA Target Speed Policy and
evaluation of vulnerable road user activity, conflict points, crash patterns, and operating speeds.
The study will determine recommended target speeds and guide supporting design or
operational changes. Findings will help refine procedures for future citywide application of
context-based speed management.
Conduct a study to test the target speed-setting process on four corridors with high potential
safety risks (e.g., HRN, high pedestrian or bicycle volumes, frequent driveways, on-street
parking, or above-average KSI crash history)
Steps for Implementation
Identify four arterial or collector corridors with high potential safety
risks based on HRN designation, crash history, pedestrian/bicycle
volumes, driveway density, and on-street parking to test.
Collect and analyze data on operating speeds, conflict points,
crash patterns, and vulnerable road user activity, using the 2025
FHWA Target Speed Policy as guidance.
Arterial/Collector Roadway Segments on HRN/above
average KSI crash history and/or with high ped/bike
volume, frequent driveways, on street parking.
Developed
1-2 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Develop recommended target speeds and associated design or
operational changes for the study corridors, and document lessons
learned to refine citywide context-based speed management
procedures.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$500,000–$1,000,000
COB operations or maintenance budget
Notes for
Implementation:
Use the 2025 FHWA Speed Limit Setting Handbook
PMO-Transportation
Consultants, Contractors, and COB Police
G-48
Strategy ID: 28
Action ID: 28.2
Safe System Category: Safe Speeds
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-6 months
Step 2:
1-1.5 years
Step 3:
1-2 years
Lead:
Support:
Conduct a study to test the target speed-setting process on four corridors with high potential
safety risks (e.g., HRN, high pedestrian or bicycle volumes, frequent driveways, on-street
parking, or above-average KSI crash history). Use the 2025 FHWA Target Speed Policy and
evaluation of vulnerable road user activity, conflict points, crash patterns, and operating speeds.
The study will determine recommended target speeds and guide supporting design or
operational changes. Findings will help refine procedures for future citywide application of
context-based speed management.
Reduce speed limits where test study indicates speed limits should be reduced
Steps for Implementation
Identify arterial and collector roadway segments where existing
speed limits exceed safe operating speeds or context-appropriate
thresholds, prioritizing high-risk locations.
Update speed limit policies and guidelines to support reduced
speeds based on roadway function, context, results of testing and
safety performance.
Arterial/Collector Roadway Segments
Developed
2-5 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Implement reduced speed limits at prioritized segments,
coordinate enforcement and public outreach, and monitor traffic
speeds and crash data to evaluate effectiveness and guide future
expansions.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$100,000–$250,000
COB operations or maintenance budget
Notes for
Implementation:
PMO-Transportation
COB DSD Engineering
G-49
Strategy ID: 29
Action ID: 29.1
Safe System Category: Safe Speeds
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-6 months
Step 2:
6-12 months
Step 3:
12-36 months
Lead:
Support:
Pilot different intersection turning radii designs at intersections and right turn slip lane designs
(including raised crosswalks, additional striping and signing, stop-controlled slip lanes) to
understand impact on vehicle speed, operation, and severe crashes.
Pilot turning radii designs at intersections and right turn slip lane designs
Steps for Implementation
Identify and prioritize major intersections for pilot program.
Develop plans for the improvements.
Arterial/Collector Intersections
Developed
2-5 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Install reduced radii at intersection and right turn slip lanes.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$500,000–$1,000,000
COB CIP, MAG Safety, ADOT TA
Notes for
Implementation:
Run AutoTurn to make sure design vehicles can still safely access roadways.
COB DSD Engineering
Consultants and Contractors
G-50
Strategy ID: 30
Action ID: 30.1
Safe System Category: Post-Crash Care
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-6 months
Step 2:
3-6 months
Step 3:
6-9 months
Lead:
Support:
Address high-severity crash locations on all roadways in Buckeye (including ADOT and MCDOT
owned) by participating in an inter-agency task force to review crash data, identify contributing
factors, and coordinate collaborative safety improvements. The task force should include
representatives from state, regional, and local agencies and meet regularly to align priorities,
share data, and implement effective countermeasures. Update coordination protocols and data-
sharing agreements as needed to support sustained, multi-jurisdictional efforts.
Create inter-agency task force to review crash data and collaborate on work efforts as well as
publish annual reports on efforts made and crash trends
Steps for Implementation
Identify and invite representatives from ADOT, MCDOT, MAG, and
other relevant agencies to participate in an inter-agency task force
focused on roadway safety and crash reduction.
Establish coordination protocols, meeting schedules, and data-
sharing agreements to facilitate consistent review of crash data
and collaborative decision-making.
All Roadways
Developed, Undeveloped, ADOT Facilities
1-2 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Convene regular task force meetings to analyze crash trends,
prioritize high-severity locations, and coordinate implementation
of safety improvements across all roadway jurisdictions. Develop
internal annual reports documenting efforts made and crash
trends.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$0–$100,000
AZ GOHS
Notes for
Implementation:
Identify inter-agency task force representatives and schedule meetings. Meetings
with sub-groups of the task force may also be warranted.
PMO-Transportation
ADOT Regional Traffic, MCDOT Engineering, COB Police,
DPS, FIRE, EMS, COB Public Works
G-51
Strategy ID: 31
Action ID: 31.1
Safe System Category: Post-Crash Care
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-6 months
Step 2:
3-6 months
Step 3:
6-12 months
Lead:
Support:
Continue to monitor incident response time standards in accordance with FHWA’s Traffic
Incident Management (TIM) performance measures to improve roadway safety, minimize
congestion and enhance interagency coordination. Define and track key TIM metrics, including
time of incident notification, arrival of first responder, roadway clearance time and incident
clearance time. Collaborate with law enforcement, fire, emergency medical services, towing and
transportation agencies to set shared performance goals, conduct after-action reviews and
implement strategies that improve detection, response and clearance efficiency. Use TIM
performance data to support continuous improvement and inform investment in incident
detection and response technologies.
Collaborate with law enforcement, fire, emergency medical services, towing and transportation
agencies to set shared performance goals, conduct after-action reviews and implement
strategies that improve detection, response and clearance efficiency
Steps for Implementation
Identify and engage all relevant agencies, including law
enforcement, fire, EMS, towing, and transportation partners to
establish a collaborative Traffic Incident Management (TIM)
working group.
Define key performance metrics, set shared incident response
goals, and develop procedures for after-action reviews to evaluate
and improve detection, response, and clearance efficiency.
All Roadways
Developed
1-2 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Implement coordinated TIM strategies across all roadways, track
performance data, and use insights to continuously refine
processes and guide investment in incident detection and
response technologies.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$0–$100,000
AZ GOHS, MAG Safety
Notes for
Implementation:
Coordinate closely with school districts, law enforcement and local agencies to
identify safety concerns and prioritize improvements
COB Police, COB Fire
COB Police, COB Fire, Tow Truck Companies
G-52
Strategy ID: 31
Action ID: 31.2
Safe System Category: Post-Crash Care
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-6 months
Step 2:
3-6 months
Step 3:
12-24 months
Lead:
Support:
Continue to monitor incident response time standards in accordance with FHWA’s Traffic
Incident Management (TIM) performance measures to improve roadway safety, minimize
congestion and enhance interagency coordination. Define and track key TIM metrics, including
time of incident notification, arrival of first responder, roadway clearance time and incident
clearance time. Collaborate with law enforcement, fire, emergency medical services, towing and
transportation agencies to set shared performance goals, conduct after-action reviews and
implement strategies that improve detection, response and clearance efficiency. Use TIM
performance data to support continuous improvement and inform investment in incident
detection and response technologies.
Define and track key traffic incident management (TIM) metrics, including time of incident
notification, arrival of first responder, roadway clearance time and incident clearance time
Steps for Implementation
Identify and standardize key TIM metrics, including incident
notification time, first responder arrival, roadway clearance time,
and total incident clearance time across all participating agencies.
Develop data collection and reporting procedures to consistently
track these metrics for all roadway incidents.
All Roadways
Developed
2-5 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Monitor and analyze collected TIM data to evaluate performance,
identify trends or bottlenecks, and inform strategies for improving
incident response and roadway clearance efficiency.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$0–$100,000
AZ GOHS, MAG Safety
Notes for
Implementation:
Coordinate closely with school districts, law enforcement and local agencies to
identify safety concerns and prioritize improvements
COB Police
COB Fire, Tow Truck Companies
G-53
Strategy ID: 31
Action ID: 31.3
Safe System Category: Post-Crash Care
Strategy :
Action:
Duration to Complete
Step 1:
3-6 months
Step 2:
3-6 months
Step 3:
12-24 months
Lead:
Support:
Continue to monitor incident response time standards in accordance with FHWA’s Traffic
Incident Management (TIM) performance measures to improve roadway safety, minimize
congestion and enhance interagency coordination. Define and track key TIM metrics, including
time of incident notification, arrival of first responder, roadway clearance time and incident
clearance time. Collaborate with law enforcement, fire, emergency medical services, towing and
transportation agencies to set shared performance goals, conduct after-action reviews and
implement strategies that improve detection, response and clearance efficiency. Use TIM
performance data to support continuous improvement and inform investment in incident
detection and response technologies.
Use TIM performance data to support continuous improvement and inform investment in
incident detection and response technologies
Steps for Implementation
Aggregate and analyze TIM performance data from all roadway
incidents to identify patterns, trends, and areas for improvement in
detection, response, and clearance.
Develop strategies and recommendations for process
improvements, resource allocation, and investment in incident
detection and response technologies based on the data insights.
All Roadways
Developed
2-5 years
Timeframe to Initiate Action:
Category Context
Development Context Group for Application
Implement data-driven improvements and technology
investments, monitor performance impacts, and refine
approaches to ensure continuous enhancement of incident
management efficiency and roadway safety.
Cost
Funding Opportunities
$0–$100,000
AZ GOHS, MAG Safety
Notes for
Implementation:
Coordinate closely with school districts, law enforcement and local agencies to
identify safety concerns and prioritize improvements
COB Police
COB Fire, Tow Truck Companies
G-54
Page 38
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
APPENDIX H
APPENDIX H:
TOOLBOX:
SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES
& BENEFITS
Safety Countermeasure Toolbox
Introduction
H-1
How to Use This Toolbox
This Toolbox provides a catalog of safety countermeasures that support
implementation of the Buckeye Transportation Safety Plan (TSP). Each
countermeasure is presented as a flexible, context-sensitive treatment that can be
applied across a variety of roadway environments, project types, and jurisdictional
conditions.
Relationship to Strategies and Actions
Each countermeasure is linked to one or more Strategy and Action IDs from the
TSP. In many cases, a single treatment supports multiple actions because safety
improvements often address more than one risk factor. For example, a raised
crosswalk in a downtown or civic area, such as near a library or community center,
can reduce vehicle speeds, improve pedestrian visibility, and increase driver
yielding at crossings.
As a result, some Toolbox entries include multiple Action IDs. This reflects the
integrated nature of the Safe System approach, where individual design elements
contribute to multiple safety outcomes rather than functioning as one-to-one
solutions.
Application Across Contexts
The Toolbox is organized to support implementation across different roadway
environments, including developed areas, undeveloped areas (City of Buckeye and
Maricopa County), and ADOT facilities. In some cases, applications extend beyond
traditional roadway classifications. For example, entries such as “Elementary and
Middle Schools” reflect targeted safety treatments in specific contexts where unique
user needs—such as children and school-related travel—require specialized
consideration.
Using the Toolbox in Practice
H-2
The Toolbox is intended to serve as a practical starting point for project development and
design. Rather than requiring users to navigate the full Transportation Safety Plan, this
appendix allows designers, engineers, and decision-makers to quickly identify applicable
countermeasures based on project context and safety needs.
Each countermeasure includes:
• A description of the treatment
• Typical conditions where it is most effective
• Supporting evidence, including FHWA Crash Modification Factors (CMFs) where
available
• Associated Strategy and Action IDs to ensure consistency with the TSP
When a countermeasure is linked to multiple actions, it should be understood as
supporting multiple safety goals. Users are encouraged to consider how a single
treatment may address several identified risks and contribute to broader system-wide
safety improvements.
A Building-Block Approach to Safety
The Toolbox is intended to function as a set of building blocks for safer infrastructure.
Individual countermeasures can be applied independently or combined to develop
comprehensive project solutions tailored to specific locations. By using these treatments
together, practitioners can implement complementary strategies that support the Safe
System approach and the City’s goals.
.
Contents
SAFE ROADS
i.
Intersections
ii.
Segments
iii.
Vulnerable Road Users
SAFE SPEEDS
POST CRASH CARE
Toolbox:
Safety
Countermeasures
& Benefits
H-3
Countermeasures
Page #
ID
• Operate signal timing to prevent excessive
speeding opportunities
H-11
1.1
• Red flashing beacons at stop signs
H-12
2.1
• Sign and pavement marking improvements
H-13
2.2
• Restricted Crossing U-turns (RCUTs)
H-14
3.1, 4.1
• Left-In, Left-Outs (LILOs)
H-15
3.1
• Traffic signals
H-16
3.2
• Large Roundabouts (Diameter > 100 feet)
H-17
3.3, 4.1
• Small Roundabouts (Diameter < 100 feet)
H-18
3.4, 14.1
• Diverging Diamond Interchanges
H-19
4.1
• Implement protected-only left-turn phasing
H-20
5.1
• Remove negative left-turn offset
H-21
5.2
• Remove or relocate visual obstructions
H-22
5.3
• Install dedicated left- and right-turn lanes
H-23
6.1
SAFE ROADS – INTERSECTIONS
H-4
SAFE ROADS – SEGMENTS
H-5
Countermeasures
Page #
ID
• Install speed feedback signs
H-25
7.1
• Implement high-friction surface treatments on
rural curves or approaches to mid-block
crossings
H-26
9.1
• Install rumble strips
H-27
9.1
• Apply enhanced curve delineation
H-28
10.1
• Widen longitudinal edge lines
H-29
10.2
• Widen shoulders
H-30
11.1
• Install protection around fixed objects and/or
signage/object markers
H-31
11.1
• Install intersection lighting
H-32
12.1
• Install roadway lighting
H-33
12.1
• Corridor access management
H-34
13.1
• Install turn lanes and two-way left-turn lanes
(TWLTL)
H-35
13.1
• Install raised medians
H-36
13.2
Countermeasures
Page #
ID
• Install horizontal deflection: medians and
pedestrian refuges
H-38
14.1
• Install pedestrian signals
H-39
16.1
• Install Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHB)
H-40
16.1
• Circular/Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
(CRFB/RRFB)
H-41
16.1
• Install pedestrian bridges
H-42
16.2
• Install pedestrian underpasses
H-43
16.2
• Install dual lighting on the corners of
intersections
H-44
17.1
• Enhance sign, signal, and pavement marking
visibility (retroreflective backplates)
H-45
17.2
• Install mid-block pedestrian crossing lighting
H-46
17.3
• Implement leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs)
H-47
17.4
• Upgrade bikeways using national design
guidelines
H-48
18.1
• 15 MPH school zone packages (signs, school
crosswalk)
H-49
19
• Reduced speed by time-of-day school zone
package (signs, flashing beacons, speed
feedback signs)
H-50
19
SAFE ROADS – VULNERABLE ROAD
USERS
H-6
SAFE SPEEDS
H-7
Countermeasures
Page #
ID
• Refine yellow and all-red clearance intervals
H-52
25.1
• Test context-appropriate speed limits
H-53
26.1,
28.1,
28.2
• Reduce travel lane widths
H-54
27.1
• Pilot reduced turning radii designs
H-55
29.1
• Pilot different right-turn slip lane enhancements
H-56
29.1
POST CRASH CARE
H-8
Countermeasures
Page #
ID
• Track incident response per FHWA Traffic
Incident Management (TIM) standards
H-58
31
Description of Toolbox Elements
Name of action
Description of action
Description of when and
where to apply the action
Additional factors to
consider when deciding
on the action
Crash types affected by
the action
Context-based
applications for the
action
Estimated cost of action
$ = $10,000 to $100,000
$$ = $100,000 to $500,000
$$$ = $500,000 to $2,000,000
$$$$ = greater than $2,000,000
Details on the benefits of
the action, typically
including Crash
Modification factors
(CMFs) from the FHWA
CMF Clearinghouse
H-9
SAFE ROADS
i. Intersections
H-10
OPERATE SIGNAL TIMING TO PREVENT EXCESSIVE SPEEDING
OPPORTUNITIES
When/Where to Use
• Corridors with speeding between signals, especially on long arterials.
• Locations where updated timing can create consistent progression speeds that maximize throughput.
• Areas adopting target-speed-based timing rather than vehicle-capacity-driven timing.
• Corridors equipped with ATSPMs to continuously monitor operations.
Description
Adjust signal timing and coordination to
manage progression speeds and minimize
long green bands that encourage
excessive speeding. Timing plans should
reflect target speeds, land-use context,
multimodal needs, and time-of-day
conditions. Supports Safe System
principles.
Associated Crash Types
Severe Crashes, Rear-End Crashes, Speed-
Related Crashes
Effectiveness
Improving signal timing by synchronizing signals at
or below the target speed can ensure safe
vehicular travel speeds are maintained.
Source(s):
https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-
guide/intersection-design-elements/traffic-
signals/signalization-principles/
Application
Developed Areas
Cost
˚˚
Other Considerations
Coordination with adjacent signals, Cycle
lengths, pedestrian timing, left-turn
phasing consistency
Action ID: 1.1
H-11
INSTALL RED FLASHING BEACONS AT STOP SIGNS
Description
A flashing beacon that is placed on top of a STOP
(R1-1) sign. The Stop Beacon consists of one or
more signal sections of a standard traffic signal
face with a flashing circular red signal indication.
The industry standard for installation and use of
Stop Beacons is defined in the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 11th Edition
2023, Sections 2A.11 (Enhanced Conspicuity for
Standard Signs) and 4S.05 (Stop Beacon).
Application
ADOT Facilities,
Developed Areas,
Undeveloped Areas
Other Considerations
Number of beacons, power source, may be
actuated to flash red when approaching vehicles
are detected through detectors, such as loops
Cost
˚
Associated Crash Types
Angle Crashes, Rear-End Crashes
Effectiveness
Red flashing beacons at stop signs are associated
with a 10% reduction in all crashes.
Source(s):
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=447
When/Where to Use
Red flashing stop beacons should be considered at intersections where additional emphasis is needed to
improve driver awareness and compliance with stop control. They are appropriate at locations with a
crash history or observed vehicle conflicts caused by non-compliance or lack of awareness of existing
traffic control. Red flashing beacons may also be considered where the intersection or traffic control
devices have limited visibility due to geometric constraints, lack of lighting, or topography.
Action ID: 2.1
H-12
Description
Install several low-cost countermeasures to
improve roadway visibility and driver awareness,
such as enlarging signs, adding duplicate signs,
applying reflective panels to sign posts, and
adding pavement word markings. The industry
standard for sign conspicuity, sign design, posts
and mounting, and pavement markings is defined
in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD) 11th Edition 2023, Sections 2A.11
(Enhanced Conspicuity for Standard Signs), 2B.03
(Size of Regulatory Signs), 2C.03 (Size of Warning
Signs and Plaques), 2A.18 (Posts and Mountings),
3B.20 (Word, Symbol, and Arrow Pavement
Markings).
Other Considerations
Sign visibility and placement, consistency with
MUTCD standards, driver comprehension
When/Where to Use
Sign and/or pavement marking improvements should be implemented at:
• Intersections with a history of crashes or driver confusion.
• Roadways with poor sign visibility due to vegetation, lack of lighting, obstructions, or curves.
• School zones and areas with high pedestrian/bicyclist activity.
• Transitions zones from high speeds to lower speeds.
In rural areas, approaches to STOP controlled intersections can be further enhanced with transverse
rumble strips.
Application
ADOT Facilities,
Developed Areas,
Undeveloped Areas
Cost
˚
Associated Crash Types
Rear-End Crashes, Angle Crashes, Pedestrian
Crashes, Bicyclist Crashes
Effectiveness
Systematic application of multiple low-cost
countermeasures, such as sign and pavement
marking improvements, is associated with:
• A 15% reduction in nighttime crashes.
• A 27% reduction in fatal and injury crashes at
rural intersections.
• A 19% reduction in fatal and injury crashes at 2-
lane by 2-lane intersections.
Source(s): https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-
safety-countermeasures/systemic-application-
multiple-low-cost-countermeasures-stop
Action ID: 2.2
SIGN AND MARKING IMPROVEMENTS
H-13
INSTALL RESTRICTED CROSSING U-TURNS (RCUTs)
When/Where to Use
RCUTs should be installed at:
• High-speed, multilane divided roadways where full-movement stop control results in severe right-angle
or left-turn conflicts.
• Corridors where signals are not desirable or spacing does not support effective coordination.
• Minor-road and commercial driveway approaches with lower volumes, where simplifying movements
improves safety and driver expectancy.
Description
Restricted Crossing U-Turns (RCUTs) improve
safety and operations on multilane divided
highways by eliminating direct side-street through
and left-turn movements at intersections. Minor-
road traffic makes a right turn followed by a
downstream U-turn at a median opening. This
configuration simplifies decision-making and
reduces conflict points. This countermeasure is
recognized by FHWA as a Proven Safety
Countermeasure and supported by the AASHTO
Green Book (2022) for alternative intersection
forms.
Other Considerations
Median width, design-vehicle accommodation,
driveway access, spacing for U-turns, pedestrian
crossings
Associated Crash Types
Angle, Left-Turn, Head-On Crashes
Effectiveness
Restricted Crossing U-Turns (RCUTs) have been
shown to reduce fatal and injury crashes by 54%
when converted from a two-way stop-controlled
intersection, 22% when converted from a
signalized intersection, and 63% when converted
from an unsignalized intersection.
Source(s):
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=5556
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=9985
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=4884
Application
ADOT Facilities,
Developed Areas
Cost
˚˚˚˚
Action ID: 3.1, 4.1
H-14
INSTALL LEFT-IN LEFT-OUTS (LILOs)
When/Where to Use
LILO median designs should be implemented at:
• Divided arterials where full-movement unsignalized intersections create high-risk left-turn and angle
conflicts.
• Minor road / driveway pairs where providing full access to both legs would result in excessive conflict
points, but full access is still desired on one leg (e.g., primary access to a development, frontage or
collector road).
• Corridors with a planned system of median openings, where LILO treatments complement RCUTs,
MUTs, and RIRO driveways to organize access and prioritize through traffic flow.
Description
Implement Left-In / Left-Out (LILO) median
designs to manage access at unsignalized
intersections and driveways on divided roadways.
A LILO provides full left-turn access on one minor-
leg (left in and left out) and right-in/right-out (RIRO)
access on the opposite minor leg, using a
directional median opening with center median
deceleration and acceleration lanes. This
treatment simplifies the most complex movements,
reduces conflict points compared to full access.
Associated Crash Types
Left-Turn, Angle Crashes
Effectiveness
LILO treatments are associated with a 10% - 25%
reduction in all crashes.
Source(s):
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=11063
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=11068
Application
Developed Areas
Cost
˚˚
Other Considerations
Median width and storage, U-turn opportunities,
spacing to adjacent openings, driveway / property
access, clear sight lines
Action ID: 3.1
H-15
INSTALL TRAFFIC SIGNALS
When/Where to Use
Traffic signals should be installed at:
• Locations that meet MUTCD 2023 signal warrants, recognizing that meeting warrants does not by itself
justify installation. Engineering judgment and prioritization of installation must be applied. Alternative
intersection forms should still be evaluated using an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) decision tool.
• Corridors where coordinated signals (typically at one mile and half mile spacing) support efficient
progression and systemwide operations.
• Locations with latent pedestrian demand, where a traffic signal can facilitate safer crossings of wide,
high-speed roadways connecting trails, schools, public facilities, or other activity centers. (An
alternative to a traffic signal for this application is a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon aka HAWK)
Description
Install and evaluate traffic signals at intersections
with high volumes or crash history to improve
safety and operations. Traffic signals assign clear
right-of-way, manage high volumes, and improve
predictability for all road users. This
countermeasure is supported by MUTCD 2023
Part 4 and AASHTO Green Book 2022.
Other Considerations
Signal warrants, power source, spacing, ROW,
intersection design, pedestrian crossing distances,
left turn phasing, signal timing, funding
When installing or upgrading a signal, maintain a
compact intersection footprint and avoid
unnecessary lanes that lengthen crossings or
degrade timing efficiency
Associated Crash Types
Failure to Yield Crashes, Angle Crashes, Left-
Turn Crashes, Pedestrian Crashes
Effectiveness
The installation of new traffic signals is associated
with a 67% reduction in angle crashes and a 44%
reduction in overall crashes.
Source(s):
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=325
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=320
Application
Developed Areas,
Undeveloped Areas
Cost
˚˚˚
Action ID: 3.2
H-16
INSTALL LARGE ROUNDABOUT (DIAMETER > 100 FEET)
When/Where to Use
Roundabouts should be installed at:
• Rural intersections where replacing two-way or all-way stop control with a roundabout can reduce
angle crashes, improve visibility, and manage higher-speed approaches.
• Intersections of collector roads or lower-volume rural minor arterials where a compact single-lane or
2×1 roundabout provides safe and efficient control without requiring large, multilane designs.
• Locations where speed management is desired, as roundabouts reduce approach speeds and provide
safer conditions compared to traditional stop-controlled or signalized intersections.
• Locations identified through ICE (Intersection Control Evaluation) as performing better than traffic
signals or stop control for safety, delay, or access spacing.
Description
Install single-lane or 2×1 roundabouts at
intersections to simplify vehicle movements,
reduce conflict points, and lower vehicle speeds,
resulting in fewer and less severe crashes.
Roundabouts eliminate traditional left-turn conflicts
and significantly reduce the potential for angle and
head-on crashes. This FHWA proven safety
countermeasure is supported by the FHWA
Roundabouts Guide, the AASHTO Green Book
(2022), and design considerations within MUTCD
2023 for channelization, signing, and pavement
markings.
Other Considerations
ROW, traffic volumes, approach alignment,
pedestrian crossings, heavy vehicle
accommodation.
Associated Crash Types
Angle, Left-Turn, Fatal, Serious Injury Crashes
Effectiveness
Roundabouts are associated with a 72% reduction
in fatal crashes and a 44% reduction in injury
crashes.
Source(s):
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/study_detai
l.php?stid=510
Application
ADOT Facilities,
Developed Areas,
Undeveloped Areas
Cost
˚˚˚˚
Action ID: 3.3, 4.1
H-17
INSTALL HORIZONTAL DEFLECTION: SMALL ROUNDABOUTS
(DIAMETER < 100 FEET)
When/Where to Use
Small roundabouts should be installed at:
• Local and collector intersections with speeding, cut-through traffic, or safety issues.
• School areas, parks, neighborhoods, and trail crossings where lower speeds benefit vulnerable users.
• Locations with lower to moderate volumes, where a compact footprint can replace or prevent the need
for ALL-WAY STOP control or a traffic signal.
Description
Install small single-lane roundabouts (inscribed
diameter < 100 feet) to introduce horizontal
deflection that naturally slows vehicle speeds and
reduces the likelihood and severity of crashes.
Compact roundabouts simplify movements,
reduce conflict points, and create a self-enforcing
slow-speed environment supportive of pedestrian
and bicyclist safety. Roundabouts are a FHWA
Proven Safety Countermeasure.
Other Considerations
traffic volumes/operations, truck aprons,
aesthetics (art or landscaping)
Associated Crash Types
Angle, Left-Turn Crashes, pedestrian and
bicyclist injury crashes
Effectiveness
Single-lane roundabouts are associated with a
25% - 59% reduction in all crashes.
Source(s):
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=9285
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=9294
Application
Developed Areas
Cost
˚˚
Action ID: 3.4, 14.1
H-18
INSTALL DIVERGING DIAMOND INTERCHANGES
When/Where to Use
DDIs should be considered at:
• Freeway–arterial interchanges with heavy left-turn movements to and from ramps, where conventional
diamonds experience congestion, long queues, or complicated signal phasing.
• Locations with a history of angle or left-turn crashes at interchange ramps, especially where high
speeds or complex driver expectations contribute to conflicts.
• Constrained interchange sites where widening the structure is difficult or costly; DDIs can often
improve capacity and safety largely through reconfiguration of the existing bridge and approaches.
Description
Convert a conventional diamond interchange to a
Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) to improve
safety and operations at freeway/arterial junctions.
In a DDI, arterial traffic crosses over to the left side
of the roadway between the ramps, allowing direct
left turns onto freeway ramps without opposing
traffic and simplifying signal phasing. DDIs reduce
the number and severity of conflict points, shorten
signal cycles, and improve progression along the
arterial. More information about this
countermeasure can be found in NCHRP 959:
Diverging Diamond Interchange Information Guide
and NCHRP 948: Guide for Pedestrian and
Bicyclist Safety at Alternative Interchanges.
Other Considerations
Bridge width and geometry, access spacing on the
arterial, pedestrian and bicycle accommodation,
signal/signing/marking complexity, driver
comprehension, frontage road system
Associated Crash Types
Angle, Left-Turn, Rear-End Crashes
Effectiveness
Diverging diamond interchanges are associated
with a 14% reduction in all crashes.
Source(s):
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=10761
Application
ADOT Facilities
Cost
˚˚˚˚
Action ID: 4.1
H-19
Description
Implement a protected-only left-turn signal phase
to eliminate conflicts between left-turning vehicles
and opposing through traffic. Protected-only
phasing provides left-turn movements with an
exclusive interval where opposing and adjacent
movements are stopped, reducing the potential for
angle crashes and improving safety for
pedestrians and bicyclists crossing concurrently.
This countermeasure is supported by the FHWA
Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide
(2023), FHWA Signal Timing Manual (2015), and
MUTCD 2023 Part 4.
IMPLEMENT PROTECTED-ONLY LEFT-TURN PHASING
When/Where to Use
Protected-only left-turn phasing should be implemented at:
• Intersections with high opposing volumes or speeds where permissive left turns are high risk
• Intersections with significant pedestrian or bicycle activity, where eliminating permissive left-turn
movements reduces conflict with vulnerable users
• Signalized intersections with a pattern of left-turn versus opposing through crashes or limited sight
distance that affects safe gap acceptance
Other Considerations
Queue length, mast arm length, dual left lanes,
signal cycle length
Associated Crash Types
Left-Turn, Angle Crashes, Left-Turn vehicles
with pedestrians/bicyclists in the crosswalk
Effectiveness
Protected-only left turn phasing is associated with
a 99% reduction in angle crashes at intersections.
Source(s):
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=339
Application
Developed Areas,
Undeveloped Areas
Cost
˚˚
Action ID: 5.1
H-20
REMOVE NEGATIVE LEFT-TURN OFFSETS
Description
Alter the geometry or striping of left-turn lanes so
that drivers have clear sight lines past opposing
left-turning vehicles to view oncoming through
traffic. Offsets should be designed to provide zero
or positive alignment between opposing left-turn
lanes, enabling adequate visibility for judging gaps
in opposing traffic.
This countermeasure is referenced in FHWA’s
Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide
(Second Edition, 2023), NCHRP Report 783 –
Evaluation of Geometric Design Practices for the
Safety of Left-Turn Offsets, and the AASHTO
Green Book (2022).
Other Considerations
Left-turn phasing, median width and alignment,
intersection width, right-of-way
Associated Crash Types
Left-turn Crashes, Angle Crashes, Head-On
Crashes, Sideswipe Crashes
Effectiveness
Removing the negative left-turn offsets for
opposing left-turn vehicles is associated with a
38% reduction in left-turn crashes.
Source(s):
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=6097
When/Where to Use
Left-turn lane alignment should always be zero or positive at:
• Signalized intersections with permissive or protected-permissive left-turn phases, where drivers must
judge gaps in opposing traffic.
• Stop-controlled intersections, particularly those with two-way stop control, where left-turning drivers
must yield to opposing through traffic on the major street.
Negative offsets are not a concern at signalized intersections with fully protected left-turn phases, where
opposing traffic does not operate concurrently.
Application
Developed Areas,
Undeveloped Areas
Cost
˚˚˚
Action ID: 5.2
H-21
REMOVE OR RELOCATE VISUAL OBSTRUCTIONS
Description
Modify intersection elements or surrounding areas
to eliminate sight obstructions that limit visibility for
drivers making right or left turns. Ensure that sight
triangles are free of physical or visual barriers such
as vegetation, signs, fences, parked vehicles, or
offset turn lanes. Adjust stop bar locations, remove
or trim vegetation, and correct offset turn lanes as
necessary to provide unobstructed sight distance
for approaching and turning vehicles. Sight
distance triangle improvements enhance visibility
and improve safety for all users, including
pedestrians and bicyclists.
Other Considerations
Obstructions on private property, minor road stop
line placement
When/Where to Use
Implement at intersections where sight distance is limited due to fixed or movable objects within the sight
triangle, such as landscaping, utility structures, or parked vehicles. This countermeasure is especially
important at:
• Stop-controlled intersections where limited sight distance affects gap acceptance.
• Intersections with right- or left-turn movements obstructed by vegetation, roadside features, or
adjacent land uses.
Associated Crash Types
Vehicle-Pedestrian, Right-Turn, Angle Crashes
Effectiveness
Removing or relocating visual obstructions in sight
visibility triangles for turning vehicles is associated
with a 48% reduction in all crashes.
Source(s):
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=307
Application
Developed Areas,
Undeveloped Areas
Cost
˚-˚˚
Action ID: 5.3
H-22
INSTALL DEDICATED LEFT- AND RIGHT-TURN LANES
When/Where to Use
Dedicated turn lanes and TWLTLs should be installed at:
• All turning movements on arterial and major arterial roadways.
• Signalized and STOP-controlled intersections where turning queues regularly block the through lane.
• Rural two-lane high-speed roadways where slowing vehicles create major speed differentials that
increase rear-end and run-off-road crash risk.
• High-volume urban or suburban arterials with frequent driveways or heavy turning activity that degrade
corridor operations when turns occur from the through lane.
• 2, 3, or 4 lane undivided roadways where a TWLTL can consolidate left-turn movements into a single,
predictable location and reduce congestion caused by midblock turning vehicles.
Description
Install dedicated left- and right-turn lanes at
intersections and along undivided roadways,
including the installation of Two-Way Left-Turn
Lanes (TWLTLs), to separate turning vehicles from
through traffic and improve the safety and
efficiency of high-speed or high-volume corridors.
Turn lanes provide defined space for deceleration
and storage and reduce disruptions in the flow of
traffic. This countermeasure is recognized by
FHWA as a Proven Safety Countermeasure and
supported by the AASHTO Green Book (2022)
and MUTCD 2023 Part 3.
Other Considerations
Right-of-way (ROW), access spacing, storage
length, pedestrian crossings, bicycle facility design
Associated Crash Types
Rear-End, Left-Turn, Right-Turn, Run-Off-Road
Crashes
Effectiveness
Dedicated left-turn lanes are associated with a
28% - 48% reduction in total crashes. Dedicated
right-turn lanes are associated with a 14% - 26%
reduction in total crashes.
Source(s): https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-
safety-countermeasures/dedicated-left-and-right-
turn-lanes-intersections
Application
Developed Areas,
Undeveloped Areas
Cost
˚˚
Action ID: 6.1
H-23
SAFE ROADS
ii. Segments
H-24
INSTALL SPEED FEEDBACK SIGNS
When/Where to Use
Speed feedback signs should be installed at:
• Corridors with recurring speeding, especially on arterials and collectors.
• Transition zones entering lower-speed areas (e.g., entering town centers or school zones).
• Approaches to curves, trail crossings, or high-activity areas where unexpected speeds pose risk.
• Locations where consistent police enforcement is limited.
• As part of time-of-day school zone packages to reinforce reduced speeds.
Description
Install radar-based speed feedback signs to
display a driver’s actual speed and encourage
voluntary compliance with posted limits. These
devices are most effective in areas where drivers
do not travel the same route repeatedly, where
visibility is high, and where approaching speeds
need to be moderated. Supported by FHWA
Speed Management guidance.
Associated Crash Types
Speed-Related Crashes
Effectiveness
Speed feedback signs are associated with a 5%
reduction in all crashes. They are more effective
when paired with periodic police enforcement.
Source(s):
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=6885
Application
Undeveloped Areas
Cost
˚
Other Considerations
Power source, placement, sign visibility, data
analysis, complementary enforcement
Action ID: 7.1
H-25
INSTALL HIGH FRICTION SURFACE TREATMENTS TO RURAL
CURVES OR APPROACHES TO MID-BLOCK CROSSINGS
When/Where to Use
• Rural horizontal curves with lane departure or run-off-road crash patterns.
• Approaches to midblock pedestrian or trail crossings where vehicles are not routinely required to stop
and may need to brake unexpectedly from free-flow speeds.
Description
Apply and evaluate high friction surface treatments
(HFST) (epoxy and aggregate combination) to
increase the surface friction of the roadway at rural
curves or approaches to midblock crossings.
HFST provides improved traction during braking
and steering, especially in wet conditions.
Supported by FHWA Proven Safety
Countermeasures.
Associated Crash Types
Motorcycle Involved, Rear-End, Pedestrian,
Run-off-road, Speed-Related Crashes
Effectiveness
64% reduction in injury crashes at ramps.
49% reduction in injury crashes at horizontal
curves.
20% reduction in all crashes at intersections.
Source(s):
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=10342
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=10333
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=2259
Application
ADOT Facilities,
Undeveloped Areas
Cost
˚
Other Considerations
Surface condition, pavement life cycle,
maintenance
Action ID: 9.1
H-26
INSTALL RUMBLE STRIPS
When/Where to Use
Centerline and shoulder rumble strips should be installed at:
• Rural high-speed roads with lane departure crash patterns.
• Segments with long distances between intersections where driver fatigue or distraction is more
common.
• Roadways with limited ambient lighting or challenging nighttime visibility.
• Shoulders wide enough to accommodate rumble strips without reducing usable area for bicyclists.
• T-intersections with a history of stop-controlled approach violations and run-through crashes involving
opposing roadside features.
Description
Install centerline and shoulder rumble strips to
provide an immediate auditory, tactile, and
vibratory warning when a vehicle drifts out of its
travel lane. Rumble strips are highly effective at
reducing lane departure crashes by alerting
drivers who are distracted, drowsy, fatigued, or
otherwise inattentive. The alert enables drivers to
quickly correct their path before leaving the
roadway or entering oncoming traffic. This
countermeasure is supported by FHWA Proven
Safety Countermeasures, the AASHTO Roadside
Design Guide, and MUTCD 2023 guidance on
longitudinal markings and driver guidance.
Other Considerations
bicycle accommodation, maintenance, pavement
thickness, resurfacing schedules, shoulder width
Associated Crash Types
Centerline rumble strips specifically reduce
head-on and opposite-direction sideswipe
crashes, while shoulder rumble strips reduce
run-off-road crashes.
Effectiveness
Rumble strips are associated with a 16% - 20%
reduction in all crashes.
Source(s):
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=6895
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=6850
Application
Developed Areas,
Undeveloped Areas
Cost
˚
Action ID: 9.1
H-27
APPLY ENHANCED CURVE DELINEATION
When/Where to Use
• Curves with run-off-road, fixed-object, or overturn crashes.
• Roadways with limited lighting or challenging geometrics (compound curves, limited sight distance).
• Locations where speed differentials between straight and curved segments lead to driver misjudgment.
Description
Apply and evaluate enhanced curve delineation
treatments, such as chevrons, post-mounted
delineators, retroreflective striping, and raised
pavement markers (RPMs) to improve driver
awareness and guidance through horizontal
curves. These treatments improve driver guidance
through curves and reduce lane departures. Verify
visibility from approaching traffic and ensure
proper placement and alignment with roadway
geometry. This is an FHWA Proven Safety
Countermeasure and supported by the MUTCD
2023 Part 2.
Other Considerations
Sign spacing, retroreflectivity, sight distance,
vegetation management.
Associated Crash Types
Fixed Object Crashes,
Run-Off-Road Crashes,
Head-On Crashes, Side-
Swipe Crashes
Effectiveness
Enhanced curve delineation is associated with an 18% - 28% reduction
in non-intersection crashes.
Raised pavement markers (RPMs) are associated with a 13% - 19%
reduction in crashes.
Chevron signs, oversized signs, sequential dynamic chevrons, in-lane
curve warning pavement markings, and fluorescent curve signs have all
shown to reduce crash frequency.
Source(s):
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?facid=10612
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?facid=10613
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?facid=5498
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?facid=5496
https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-
countermeasures/enhanced-delineation-horizontal-curves
Application
Undeveloped Areas
Cost
˚
Action ID: 10.1
H-28
WIDEN LONGITUDINAL LINES
When/Where to Use
• Rural curves, rural two-lane roads, and nighttime crash locations where drivers have difficulty
maintaining lane position.
• Corridors with limited street lighting.
• Locations with narrow lanes or minimal shoulders.
Description
Improve lane recognition by widening edge lines
and/or centerlines (e.g., from 4 inches to 6 inches)
to guide drivers along roadway segments,
particularly at night and in low-visibility conditions.
Wider pavement markings reduce lane departures.
Additionally, new guidance from the MUTCD
recommends wider pavement markings to support
automated vehicle integration. This
countermeasure is recognized by FHWA as a
Proven Safety Countermeasure and supported by
the MUTCD 2023. On narrow roadways, double
raised pavement markers may be installed along
edge lines to enhance roadway edge delineation
and provide a tactile warning to drivers.
Other Considerations
Retroreflectivity, maintenance
Associated Crash Types
Run-off-the-Road, Sideswipe Crashes
Effectiveness
Wider edge lines are associated with a 37% reduction in non-
intersection fatal and injury crashes on rural two-lane roads,
and a 22% reduction in fatal and injury crashes on rural
freeways.
Raised pavement markers (RPMs) are associated with a 13%
- 19% reduction in crashes.
Source(s):
https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-
countermeasures/wider-edge-lines
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?facid=5498
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?facid=5496
Application
Undeveloped Areas
Cost
˚
Action ID: 10.2
H-29
WIDEN SHOULDERS
When/Where to Use
Wider shoulders should be installed at:
• Two-lane rural and suburban roadways with run-off-road or fixed-object crash patterns.
• Segments within Maricopa County islands, where gaps in sidewalk and bikeway networks require
pedestrians and bicyclists to use the shoulder.
• Roadways with limited recovery areas, roadside hazards, narrow pavement, or deteriorated edges.
• Corridors used by bicyclists, school routes, farm equipment, or pedestrians traveling between
subdivisions, trails, schools, and local destinations where pedestrian activity may be intermittent or
where continuous sidewalks are not present.
• Horizontal curves or rolling terrain where lane departures are more common.
Description
Widen roadway shoulders along roadway
segments to ensure adequate space for
pedestrians, bicyclists, and stalled vehicles. Wider
roadway shoulders provide recovery space for
errant vehicles and reduce run-off-road crashes.
Wider shoulders support multimodal travel in areas
without sidewalks or bike lanes and help reduce
crash severity by giving drivers more room to
react.
Other Considerations
Roadside slopes, drainage, edge drop-offs, rumble
strips, multimodal use, right-of-way (ROW)
Associated Crash Types
Run-off-road, Fixed-object, Bicyclist Crashes
Effectiveness
Widening the shoulders along roadways can help
reduce crash frequency by providing more space
between vehicles and roadside objects, barriers,
and vulnerable road users.
Source(s):
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/sa
fety/09031/index.cfm
Application
Undeveloped Areas
Cost
˚˚˚
Action ID: 11.1
H-30
INSTALL PROTECTION AROUND FIXED OBJECTS AND/OR
SIGNAGE/OBJECT MARKERS
When/Where to Use
Protection and object markers should be installed at:
• Roadside hazards such as culvert ends, drainage structures, utility poles, and rigid objects close to the
travel lane.
• Curved segments or narrow shoulders where drivers may leave the roadway or misjudge alignment.
• Locations where objects cannot be removed, relocated, or made breakaway.
• Segments with nighttime or low-visibility lane departure concerns, where object markers improve
guidance.
Description
Install roadside protection to reduce the severity of
lane departure crashes and improve driver
awareness of roadside hazards. Barriers such as
guardrail or curb are used when a fixed object
(e.g., drainage structure, culvert headwall, utility
pole) cannot be removed or relocated; these
treatments shield the hazard and prevent direct
vehicle impacts. Object markers, by contrast, are
high-visibility MUTCD-compliant reflective panels
that alert drivers to the presence and exact
location of a fixed object, improving nighttime and
low-visibility recognition without requiring a
physical barrier. These countermeasures are
supported by the AASHTO Roadside Design
Guide and the MUTCD 2023 Part 3.
Other Considerations
Visibility to vehicles
Associated Crash Types
Fixed Object, Run-Off-Road Crashes
Effectiveness
Protection around fixed objects and object
markers will increase driver visibility of roadside
hazards.
Source(s):
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2003/part3/part3c
.htm
Application
Undeveloped Areas
Cost
˚-˚˚
Action ID: 11.1
H-31
INSTALL INTERSECTION LIGHTING
When/Where to Use
Intersection lighting should be installed at:
• Limited-access and high-speed state highway facilities, particularly at ramps, merge points, and
intersections where roadway geometry or decision points require enhanced nighttime visibility.
• Rural roadways and low-density areas, especially at intersections where long distances between light
sources reduce driver ability to recognize turning vehicles, cross traffic, and roadway features.
• Areas with high pedestrian activity, signalized intersections, midblock crosswalks, transit stops, trail
crossings, and other locations where non-motorized users are present during early morning or evening
hours. Use positive lighting at crosswalks to illuminate pedestrians from the driver’s approach direction.
• Locations with a documented history of nighttime crashes or observed nighttime safety concerns.
Description
Evaluate lighting conditions at intersection
crosswalks and intersection approaches to ensure
illumination standards are met, positive crosswalk
lighting is provided, and pedestrian-level lighting is
provided where appropriate. Intersection lighting
enhances a driver’s ability to detect other vehicles,
roadway geometry, and non-motorized users
under low-light conditions. Actions to mitigate
lighting deficiencies include the installation of new
light posts and the enhancement/replacement of
existing luminaires. Lighting standard updates
should be implemented while acknowledging dark
sky preservation initiatives. All street lighting
designs should follow the photometric
requirements set in the COB EDS 7-1.102. This
countermeasure is supported by FHWA research
demonstrating safety benefits of targeted
intersection and crosswalk lighting.
Associated Crash Types
Nighttime/Dawn/Dusk Single Vehicle (run-off-
road, fixed-object), Angle, Pedestrian and
Bicyclist Crashes
Effectiveness
Improved intersection lighting is associated with a
53% reduction in nighttime crashes.
Source(s):
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=8320
Application
Developed Areas
Cost
˚˚
Action ID: 12.1
Other Considerations
Power source, photometric uniformity, dark sky
areas, maintenance, pedestrian scale lighting
H-32
INSTALL ROADWAY LIGHTING
When/Where to Use
• Roadway segments with nighttime crash patterns or inadequate ambient lighting.
• Rural or suburban arterials where high speeds and low visibility increase crash risk.
• Corridors with vulnerable road user activity such as trail crossings or transit stops.
• Segments with complex geometry, such as curves or undivided highways.
Description
Install continuous or targeted corridor lighting to
improve nighttime visibility and reduce the
frequency and severity of nighttime crashes.
Roadway lighting improves driver detection of
curves, intersections, pedestrians, bicyclists,
animals, and roadside hazards.
Other Considerations
Power source, lighting uniformity, dark-sky
compliance, maintenance, landscaping
Associated Crash Types
Nighttime Crashes
Effectiveness
Roadway lighting is associated with a 37%
reduction in all crashes
Source(s):
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=7774
Application
Developed Areas
Cost
˚˚˚
Action ID: 12.1
H-33
Description
Improve corridor safety and traffic flow by
implementing access management strategies that
reduce conflict points and simplify driver decision-
making along arterial and high-risk network (HRN)
segments. Key practices include managing access
spacing, consolidating or removing driveways,
limiting driveway turning movements (e.g., right-
in/right-out only, 3/4 access), and aligning access
points with intersection geometry. This
countermeasure is recognized by FHWA as a
Proven Safety Countermeasure and is supported
by the AASHTO Green Book (2022) and FHWA’s
Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide
(2023).
CORRIDOR ACCESS MANAGEMENT
When/Where to Use
Access management strategies should be applied on:
• Arterial corridors with closely spaced driveways or intersections that create excessive conflict points
and crash patterns.
• Roadway segments near intersections (within 500 feet) where unrestricted or poorly placed access
points interfere with intersection operations.
Access restrictions are most effective when combined with land use and zoning policies that manage
driveway spacing and consolidate access over time.
Other Considerations
Property access/coordination, redirected traffic
patterns, median feasibility
Associated Crash Types
Angle Crashes, Left-Turn, Rear-End Crashes
Effectiveness
Management of driveway accesses is associated
with a 25% - 31% reduction in fatal and injury
crashes along urban/suburban arterials.
Source(s):
https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-
countermeasures/corridor-access-management
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=179
Application
Developed Areas
Cost
˚˚
Action ID: 13.1
H-34
INSTALL LEFT- AND RIGHT-TURN LANES AND TWLTL
When/Where to Use
Dedicated turn lanes and TWLTLs should be installed at:
• Signalized and STOP controlled intersections where turning queues regularly block the through lane.
• Rural two-lane high-speed roadways where slowing vehicles create major speed differentials that
increase rear-end and run-off-road crash risk.
• High-volume urban or suburban arterials with frequent driveways or heavy turning activity that degrade
corridor operations when turns occur from the through lane.
• 2, 3, or 4 lane undivided roadways where a TWLTL can consolidate left-turn movements into a single,
predictable location and reduce congestion caused by midblock turning vehicles.
Description
Install dedicated left- and right-turn lanes at
intersections and along undivided roadways,
including the installation of Two-Way Left-Turn
Lanes (TWLTLs), to separate turning vehicles from
through traffic and improve the safety and
efficiency of high-speed or high-volume corridors.
Turn lanes provide defined space for deceleration
and storage and reduce disruptions in the flow of
traffic. This countermeasure is recognized by
FHWA as a Proven Safety Countermeasure and
supported by the AASHTO Green Book (2022)
and MUTCD 2023 Part 3.
Other Considerations
Right-of-way (ROW), access spacing, storage
length, pedestrian crossings, bicycle facility design
Associated Crash Types
Rear-End, Left-Turn, Right-Turn, Run-Off-Road
Crashes
Effectiveness
Two-way left-turn lanes are associated with a 8% -
20% reduction in crashes.
Source(s):
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=1285
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=1292
Application
Developed Areas,
Undeveloped Areas
Cost
˚˚
Action ID: 13.1
H-35
INSTALL RAISED MEDIANS
When/Where to Use
• Segments with high volumes and high speeds (high risk)
• Segments with a history of head-on, sideswipe, or turning crashes.
• Arterial and collector roads where access management (e.g., RIRO, LILO, RCUT) will benefit safety
and operations.
• Corridors with frequent midblock conflict points, such as closely spaced driveways.
• Locations where pedestrian crossings may benefit from refuge islands.
Description
Install raised medians along roadway segments to
separate opposing traffic, improve access
management, and enhance pedestrian safety at
designated crossings. Raised medians provide
refuge areas that support staged pedestrian
crossings at intersections or approved crossing
locations, reducing pedestrian exposure to traffic
and shortening crossing distances. This treatment
reduces head-on and sideswipe crashes, supports
predictable turning movements, improves driver
guidance, and is identified by FHWA as a Proven
Safety Countermeasure.
Other Considerations
Median width, driveway access, drainage, U-turn
space, emergency access
Associated Crash Types
Head-On, Left-Turn, Sideswipe Opposite, Angle,
Pedestrian Crashes
Effectiveness
Raised medians are associated with a 71%
reduction in all crashes and 46% reduction in
pedestrian crashes.
Source(s):
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=2219
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=175
Application
Developed Areas
Cost
˚˚˚
Action ID: 13.2
H-36
SAFE ROADS
iii. Vulnerable Road Users
H-37
INSTALL HORIZONTAL DEFLECTION: MEDIANS AND PEDESTRIAN
REFUGE
When/Where to Use
Medians and refuge islands are broadly suitable on most roads and should be incorporated into new
construction. Installation should be prioritized where:
• The roadway has multiple lanes with higher operating speeds.
• Pedestrians or bicyclists need safer, staged crossings of two or more lanes.
• Lower speeds are desired but enforcement alone is insufficient.
Description
Install raised medians and pedestrian refuge
islands to introduce horizontal deflection, narrow
the perceived roadway width, and create self-
enforcing lower vehicle speeds. Medians visually
and physically restrict the roadway cross section,
reducing speeding and improving driver
attentiveness. Refuge islands provide pedestrians
and bicyclists with a protected mid-crossing
waiting area at marked crossings, allowing them to
cross one direction of traffic at a time and
significantly improving safety at marked
crosswalks. Verify that medians are visible to
approaching traffic and pedestrian refuge areas
meet ADA / PROWAG standards.
Associated Crash Types
Speed-Related Crashes, Pedestrian Crashes
Effectiveness
Medians with marked crosswalks are associated
with a 46% reduction in pedestrian crashes.
Pedestrian refuge islands are associated with a
56% reduction in pedestrian crashes.
Source(s):
https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-
countermeasures/medians-and-pedestrian-refuge-
islands-urban-and-suburban-areas
Application
Developed Areas
Cost
˚˚
Other Considerations
ADA / PROWAG compliance, median width,
access spacing, streetscape opportunities
Action ID: 14.1
H-38
INSTALL PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL
When/Where to Use
Pedestrian signals should be installed at:
• Midblock locations meeting MUTCD pedestrian signal warrants or where safe crossing opportunities
are otherwise insufficient.
• Areas with continuous pedestrian volumes such as school routes, university districts, or commercial
corridors.
• Crossings where coordination with nearby traffic signals benefits corridor operations.
Description
Install a full pedestrian signal at midblock locations
to provide a controlled crossing for pedestrians
and bicyclists. Unlike PHBs, pedestrian signals
operate like standard traffic signals with a steady
green, yellow, and red sequence. Pedestrian
signals improve crossing opportunities and safety
in areas with sustained pedestrian demand and
complex crossing conditions.
Other Considerations
Crosswalk placement, curb extensions,
ADA/PROWAG ramps, lighting, advanced stop
lines, pedestrian detection
Associated Crash Types
Pedestrian Crashes, Bicycle Crashes
Effectiveness
Pedestrian signals have a slightly lower motorist
compliance rate (95%) than a Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacon (97%).
Source(s):
https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/NCHRP-
562-Improving-Pedestrian-Safety-at-Unsignalized-
Crossings.pdf
Application
Developed Areas
Cost
˚˚
Action ID: 16.1
H-39
INSTALL PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON (PHB)
When/Where to Use
PHBs should be installed at:
• Midblock or uncontrolled crossings on multilane roadways where speeds or volumes make it difficult for
pedestrians or bicyclists to find safe gaps.
• Locations with high pedestrian demand near transit stops, schools, trails, or community destinations.
Midblock locations too far from the nearest signalized crossing to reasonably expect pedestrians to
detour.
• Locations that meet MUTCD 2023 PHB warrants, including pedestrian volume criteria. When
evaluating warrants, MUTCD allows children, elderly adults, or people with disabilities to be counted as
more than one pedestrian because of their slower walking speeds.
Description
Install a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) at
midblock or uncontrolled multilane locations to
improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety by
providing a highly visible, stop-controlled crossing.
PHBs display a dark signal until activated, then
use a sequence of flashing and steady red
indications to require vehicles to stop. PHBs
significantly increase driver yielding compliance
and are supported as an FHWA Proven Safety
Countermeasure, and by the MUTCD 2023 Part 4.
Other Considerations
Crosswalk placement, curb extensions,
ADA/PROWAG ramps, lighting, advance stop or
yield lines, sight distance / no parking, pedestrian
detection, pedestrian refuge island
Associated Crash Types
Pedestrian Crashes, Bicycle Crashes
Effectiveness
Pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHBs) are associated
with a 43% reduction in pedestrian crashes.
Source(s):
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=10591
Application
Developed Areas
Cost
˚˚
Action ID: 16.1
H-40
INSTALL CIRCULAR/RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACONS
When/Where to Use
RRFBs should be installed at:
• Locations with low-to-moderate speeds where enhanced driver awareness is needed.
• Two-lane or lower-volume multilane roads where a full signal or PHB is not warranted.
• Crossings of local roads near schools, parks, trails, or transit stops.
• Areas where pedestrians prefer to cross at midblock locations due to trip patterns or land use (e.g.
Downtown).
• Locations identified through the AZ Safe Transportation for Every Pedestrian (STEP) Guide
Description
Install circular/rectangular rapid
flashing beacons (CRFBs/RRFBs)
at midblock or uncontrolled
crossings to improve driver
yielding behavior through high-
intensity, pedestrian-activated
flashing beacons. RRFBs
increase conspicuity of the
crossing and draw driver
attention to pedestrians waiting to
cross.
Other Considerations
Crosswalk design, curb
extensions, signage, positive
lighting, visibility, pushbutton
placement
Associated Crash Types
Pedestrian Crashes, Bicycle Crashes
Effectiveness
Rapid flashing beacons are associated with a 69%
reduction in pedestrian crashes.
Source:
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=11158
Application
Developed Areas
Cost
˚
Action ID: 16.1
H-41
INSTALL PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
When/Where to Use
Pedestrian bridges should be installed at:
• Wide arterials, highways, or freeways where at-grade crossings are not feasible or safe.
• Locations with significant pedestrian generators such as schools, transit hubs, trail networks, and large
event venues.
• Sites where grade separation supports regional connectivity or closes a critical gap in a pedestrian or
bicycle network.
• Areas where repeated pedestrian crashes indicate that at-grade enhancements are insufficient.
Description
Construct a pedestrian bridge to provide a grade-
separated crossing over a roadway, eliminating
direct interaction between pedestrians/bicyclists
and vehicle traffic. Pedestrian bridges provide
crossings where no other pedestrian facility is
available and connect off-road trails and paths
across major barriers.
Other Considerations
ADA grades, lighting, ROW, structural cost,
aesthetic integration, connections to trail
networks, pedestrians will not use if a more direct
route is available
Associated Crash Types
Pedestrian Crashes, Bicycle Crashes
Effectiveness
Pedestrian bridges separate pedestrians from
vehicle traffic, eliminating crossing conflicts.
Source(s):
http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/countermeas
ures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=10
Application
Developed Areas
Cost
˚˚˚˚
Action ID: 16.2
H-42
INSTALL UNDERPASS
When/Where to Use
Pedestrian underpasses should be installed at:
• Roadways with very high speeds or volumes where at-grade crossings cannot be safely
accommodated.
• Locations with regional trails, shared-use paths, or high non-motorized demand (e.g. safe routes to
school) where continuous travel is critical.
• Areas where topography (e.g., wash, canal, natural slope) allows economical grade separation.
• Corridors with severe or persistent pedestrian safety issues that cannot be mitigated with at-grade
solutions.
Description
Construct a pedestrian underpass to provide a
fully grade-separated crossing beneath a roadway.
Pedestrian underpasses provide complete
separation of pedestrians from motor vehicle
traffic, provide crossings where no other
pedestrian facility is available, and connect off-
road trails and paths across major barriers.
Other Considerations
ADA grades, lighting, drainage, personal security,
maintenance, minimum widths, connections to trail
networks, pedestrians will not use if a more direct
route is available
Associated Crash Types
Pedestrian Crashes, Bicycle Crashes
Effectiveness
Underpasses separate pedestrians from vehicle
traffic, eliminating crossing conflicts.
Source(s):
http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/countermeas
ures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=10
Application
Developed Areas
Cost
˚˚˚˚
Action ID: 16.2
H-43
INSTALL DUAL LIGHTING ON THE CORNERS OF INTERSECTIONS
When/Where to Use
Pedestrian-focused lighting should be incorporated into city standards for new construction and installed
at:
• Wide, multilane signalized intersections where pedestrians face long crossing distances and drivers
need earlier visual cues.
• Corridors with high pedestrian generators, such as commercial centers, campuses, civic facilities, and
transit routes.
• Locations with a documented history of nighttime crashes or observed nighttime safety concerns.
Description
Install dual lighting at each corner of wide
intersections and positive overhead lighting that
illuminates pedestrians from the driver’s approach
direction (not from behind the pedestrian) at
crossings to ensure illumination standards are met.
Enhanced illumination increases driver detection
distance, improves recognition of pedestrian
movements, and reduces nighttime crash risk.
Lighting standard updates should be implemented
while acknowledging dark sky preservation
initiatives. All street lighting designs should follow
the photometric requirements set in the COB EDS
7-1.102.
Other Considerations
Lighting uniformity on crosswalk, roadway width,
pedestrian crossing distance, median lighting,
dark-sky compliance, color temperature lighting to
indicate a crossing
Associated Crash Types
Nighttime Crashes, Pedestrian Crashes at
Signalized Intersections
Effectiveness
Dual lighting on the corners of intersections are
associated with a 21% reduction in all crashes,
and an 12% reduction in nighttime crashes.
Source(s):
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=10993
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=4462
Application
Developed Areas
Cost
˚˚
Action ID: 17.1
H-44
ENHANCE SIGN, SIGNAL, AND PAVEMENT MARKING
VISIBILITY (REFLECTIVE BACKPLATES)
When/Where to Use
Visibility enhancements should be incorporated into city standards for new construction and installed at:
• Wide arterial intersections with multiple lanes, where improved conspicuity helps drivers identify signal
indications earlier.
• Midblock pedestrian crossings that rely on overhead beacons or signals.
• Locations with nighttime crash history, sun glare, or complex visual environments that reduce driver
detection of signals and markings.
Description
Improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety at
signalized intersections and midblock crossings by
enhancing the visibility of traffic control devices.
Retroreflective backplates increase signal
conspicuity under nighttime, low-light, and sun-
glare conditions, supporting safer yielding behavior
for drivers approaching crosswalks. Additionally,
new guidance from the MUTCD recommends
signal backplates to support automated vehicle
integration. This countermeasure is recognized by
FHWA as a Proven Safety Countermeasure and
supported by the MUTCD 2023.
Other Considerations
Maintenance of reflective materials, consistency
across corridors, mast arm style
Associated Crash Types
Night-Time Crashes, Red-light Running
Effectiveness
Reflective backplates are associated with a 15%
reduction in all crashes.
Source(s):
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=1410
Application
Developed Areas
Cost
˚
Action ID: 17.2
H-45
INSTALL MID-BLOCK PEDESTRIAN CROSSING LIGHTING
When/Where to Use
Midblock crossing lighting should be installed at:
• Midblock pedestrian or bicycle crossings, especially on multilane or higher-speed corridors.
• Crossings near schools, transit stops, trails, parks, or activity centers where nighttime or early-morning
pedestrian demand exists..
• Locations with limited ambient or street lighting, including rural suburban arterials where nighttime
visibility is reduced.
• Crossings with PHBs, RRFBs, pedestrian signals, or marked crosswalks that require enhanced visibility
at night.
Description
Install midblock pedestrian crossing lighting to
improve nighttime visibility and increase driver
detection of pedestrians and bicyclists. Midblock
lighting enhances the luminance and contrast of
the crosswalk area, making non-motorized users
visible earlier and reducing the risk of nighttime
crashes. Effective midblock lighting uses positive
illumination, placing luminaires upstream of the
crossing to illuminate pedestrians from the driver’s
viewpoint.
Other Considerations
Power source, lighting uniformity, dark-sky
compliance, color temperature lighting to indicate
a crossing
Associated Crash Types
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Crashes
Effectiveness
Illumination is associated with a 32% reduction in
injury crashes.
Source(s):
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=578
Application
Developed Areas
Cost
˚˚
Action ID: 17.3
H-46
IMPLEMENT LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVALS (LPIs)
When/Where to Use
LPIs should be implemented at:
• Intersections with heavy pedestrian activity including commercial areas, schools, and transit corridors.
• Locations with recurring turning vehicle conflicts particularly right turns on green or left turns on green
where turning drivers may fail to notice pedestrians entering the crosswalk.
• Wide arterial intersections where pedestrians need improved visibility and priority.
LPIs provide reduced benefit at intersections with free flow or yield controlled channelized right turn lanes
such as Buckeye’s intersection designs where pedestrians cross the slip lane separately before the
signalized intersection. In these cases, an LPI enhances safety only for the main intersection crossing.
Pairing LPIs with geometric treatments such as raised crosswalks can further improve yielding.
Description
Provide Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) at
signalized intersections to give pedestrians a 3–7
second head start before parallel vehicle
movements receive a green indication. LPIs
increase pedestrian visibility, reduce turning-
vehicle conflicts, and support safer crossings. LPIs
are recognized by FHWA as a Proven Safety
Countermeasure and are supported in MUTCD
2023 (Part 4) as a key multimodal signal timing
strategy.
Other Considerations
Cycle length impacts, turning-movement volumes,
multiple threat scenario with dual right turn lanes,
right turn on red restriction
Associated Crash Types
Pedestrian Crashes, Bicycle Crashes
Effectiveness
Leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs) are associated
with a 19% reduction in pedestrian crashes.
Source(s):
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=9903
Application
Developed Areas
Cost
˚
Action ID: 17.4
H-47
UPGRADE BIKEWAYS USING NATIONAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
When/Where to Use
Upgraded bikeways should be implemented at:
• Arterials, collectors, and major corridors with moderate to high traffic volumes or higher posted speeds
where standard bike lanes offer insufficient separation.
• Corridors serving schools, parks, transit hubs, commercial districts, or regional trails where family-
friendly or all-ages bicycling is desired
• Streets included in long-range bicycle network plans, multimodal plans, or safe routes to school plans.
Facilities may include buffered bike lanes, curb-separated lanes, raised cycle tracks, parking-protected
bike lanes, or shared-use sidepaths depending on context.
Description
Upgrade existing or planned bikeways by applying
national design guidance to provide buffered,
separated, or protected bicycle facilities that
increase comfort and reduce crash risk for
bicyclists. Enhanced bikeway designs reduce
exposure to vehicle traffic, improve sight
distances, and provide consistent, predictable
operating space for cyclists of all ages and
abilities. This approach is supported by NACTO
Urban Bikeway Design Guide, AASHTO Guide for
the Development of Bicycle Facilities, and FHWA
Bikeway Selection Guide.
Other Considerations
Drainage, maintenance (street sweeping),
intersection treatments, driveway volumes, sight
distance, bus stop integration
Associated Crash Types
Bicycle Crashes
Effectiveness
Conversion of a traditional bike lane to a separated
bike lane with flexible posts is associated with a
50% vehicle/bicycle crash reduction.
Source(s):
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=11294
Application
Developed Areas
Cost
˚˚˚
Action ID: 18.1
H-48
INSTALL 15 MPH SCHOOL ZONE PACKAGE (SIGNS, SCHOOL
CROSSWALK)
When/Where to Use
15 mph school zone treatments should be installed at:
• Elementary schools where children frequently walk or bike to campus.
• School frontage roads where crossing activity occurs directly adjacent to the school.
• Locations where a consistently slower operating speed is needed and enforcement alone cannot
ensure safe behavior.
Description
Implement a 15 mph school zone package that
includes school warning signs, pavement
markings, and marked crosswalks to establish
slow-speed conditions during arrival and dismissal
at elementary schools. These zones prioritize child
safety by reducing vehicle speeds to survivable
levels for young pedestrians, who have limited
judgment and unpredictable behavior. This
treatment follows the 2006 ADOT Traffic Safety for
School Areas Guidelines.
Application
Elementary and
middle schools
Cost
˚
Other Considerations
Visibility of signs and markings, crossing guard
operations, curb management, school
coordination, school staff training, school funding,
proper documentation per AZ/MAG guidelines
Associated Crash Types
Child pedestrian crashes, school-area conflicts,
speeding near school crosswalks.
Effectiveness
Arizona has been a leader in providing a system
for safe school crossings. The system was first
established in 1950 through adoption of Arizona
Revised Statutes (ARS) 28-797. This state law
provides a uniform application of 15 mph school
zone traffic control that can only be used for
elementary and middle schools (kindergarten
through eighth grades) in Arizona at authorized
school crossings meeting certain minimum criteria.
Action ID: 19
H-49
REDUCED SPEED BY TIME-OF-DAY SCHOOL ZONE PACKAGE
(SIGNS, FLASHING BEACONS, SPEED FEEDBACK SIGNS)
When/Where to Use
Time of day school zone treatments should be installed at:
• Schools that generate significant pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicle activity near dismissal and arrival
times.
• Arterials and collectors where posted speeds are higher outside school hours.
• Locations where flashing beacons or feedback signs can improve driver awareness and compliance
during active school periods.
• Lights should operate only during periods when students are arriving at or departing from school.
Continuous operation throughout the entire school day reduces their effectiveness.
Description
Install time-of-day school zone treatments that
include flashing beacons, school warning signs,
and speed feedback signs to reduce speeds
during active periods, defined as times when
students are arriving at or departing from school or
are present along school frontages. These zones
align reduced speeds with predictable arrival and
dismissal times and help moderate speeds on
higher-volume and higher-speed roadways.
Application
Middle schools and
high schools
Cost
˚
Other Considerations
Beacon timing schedules, early release and
special event adjustments, power source, data
analysis
Associated Crash Types
Speed-related school area crashes, pedestrian
and bicyclist injury crashes, conflicts involving
turning vehicles at school entrances.
Effectiveness
A 2024 study by the City of Peoria resulted in:
• Speeds decreased by an average of 10 miles
per hour when schools were in session and
signs were active.
• 23% of vehicles travelled at or below the speed
limit before and after the VSL, however, the
share of vehicles going 50 mph or above
decreased from 25% to 5%.
Action ID: 19
H-50
SAFE SPEEDS
H-51
REFINE YELLOW AND ALL-RED CLEARANCE INTERVALS
When/Where to Use
Yellow change and red clearance intervals should be refined at:
• Signalized intersections with patterns of red-light running, right-angle crashes, or rear-end crashes
related to insufficient or excessive yellow duration.
• Locations where operating speeds, grades, or approach geometry differ from values used in the
original timing, or where speed limits, lane configurations, or coordination plans have recently
changed.
Description
Evaluate and update the yellow change interval
and all-red intervals, which is the length of time
that the yellow signal indication is displayed
following a green signal indication, and the length
of time all traffic signals are displayed red during
the cycle length. Properly timed intervals provide
drivers with adequate time to either stop safely or
complete movements through the intersection.
This countermeasure is recognized by FHWA as a
Proven Safety Countermeasure and supported by
the FHWA Signal Timing Manual (2nd Ed.) and the
MUTCD 2023 Part 4.
Other Considerations
Posted vs. operating speeds, intersection
geometry, grades, Automated Traffic Signal
Performance Measures (ATSPMs) support
continuous monitoring and allow timing
adjustments based on actual driver behavior and
violation trends.
Associated Crash Types
Red-Light Running (angle), Rear-end crashes
Effectiveness
Appropriately timed intervals are associated with a
36% - 50% reduction in red light running,
Source(s): https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-
safety-countermeasures/yellow-change-intervals
Application
Developed Areas
Cost
˚
Action ID: 25.1
H-52
TEST CONTEXT-APPROPRIATE SPEED LIMITS
When/Where to Use
Context-appropriate speed limits should be implemented when:
• Current speed limits and/or operating speeds do not align with land use, roadside activity, or
multimodal needs.
• A corridor has high pedestrian or bicyclist exposure, such as near schools, parks, transit stops, and
commercial or mixed-use areas.
• New development shifts a roadway from rural to suburban or urban function and requires a context re-
evaluation.
Use speed limits as part of a holistic corridor strategy paired with design that self-enforces the target
speed.
Description
Test speed limits that reflect the context of the
roadway—its adjacent land use, roadway function,
multimodal activity, and desired safety outcomes.
Target speeds prioritize human survivability and
are set to match the speed the roadway is
designed to support. FHWA Proven Safety
Countermeasure.
Associated Crash Types
Severe Crashes, Speed-Related Crashes
Effectiveness
A widely used safety model, known as the Power
Model, found that lowering the average speed on
a road by just 10% can reduce overall injury
crashes by about 19%, cut serious and fatal
crashes by 27%, and lower fatal crashes by 34%
(OECD/ITF Speed and Crash Risk, 2018).
Source(s):
https://www.itf-oecd.org/speed-crash-risk
Application
Developed Areas
Cost
˚
Other Considerations
Cross-section width, multimodal demand, roadside
activity levels, enforcement limitations, land use,
transition zones
Action ID: 26.1, 28.1, 28.2
H-53
REDUCE TRAVEL LANE WIDTHS TO LESS THAN 12 FEET
When/Where to Use
Lane width reductions should be incorporated in design standards for new roads and implemented on:
• Urban and suburban arterials and collectors where lower operating speeds improve safety for all users.
• Residential and mixed-use streets where narrower lanes support traffic calming and multimodal
activity.
• Overbuilt roadways where future pavement maintenance and restriping can incorporate narrower lane
widths. Narrow lanes can often be implemented quickly during repaving or restriping projects, making
them a cost-effective speed management tool.
Description
Reduce travel lane widths to less than 12 feet to
support safer operating speeds, improve driver
attentiveness, and create a more context-
appropriate roadway cross section. Narrower
lanes reduce speeding, shorten pedestrian
crossing distances, and create space for
multimodal elements such as bike lanes, buffered
shoulders, medians, or landscape zones.
Narrower lanes helps avoid overbuilt streets and
results in roadway designs that are safer and more
efficient to construct and maintain. Narrower lanes
also provide long-term cost benefits through
reduced pavement area, lower resurfacing and
reconstruction costs, smaller stormwater
footprints, and reduced heat island effects.
Other Considerations
Multimodal integration, agricultural context
Associated Crash Types
Speed-Related Crashes: lane departure, run
red, pedestrian and bicyclist injury, rear end
Effectiveness
Reduced travel lane widths are associated with a
24% - 42% reduction in all crashes.
Source(s):
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=7825
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=7827
Application
Developed Areas
Cost
˚˚˚
Action ID: 27.1
H-54
PILOT REDUCED TURNING RADII DESIGNS
When/Where to Use
• Downtown and civic center environments where pedestrian activity is high.
• Intersections with high-speed right turns or poor yielding behavior.
• Areas undergoing redevelopment where corners can be rebuilt or retrofitted.
• Locations where emergency and large vehicle turning paths can be accommodated via mountable
aprons if needed.
Description
Pilot reduced curb radii at intersections to slow
turning vehicles and improve pedestrian crossing
safety. Tighter radii decrease turning speeds and
shorten crossing distances. Designs should be
context-sensitive and appropriate for downtown or
mixed-use areas.
Associated Crash Types
Pedestrian Crashes, Failure to Yield Crashes,
Speed-Related Crashes
Effectiveness
The CMF indicates that larger turning radii are
associated with an increase in pedestrian crashes
by 18% - 59% (from a 10-foot radius to a 20 or 70-
foot radius). This suggests larger turning radii
negatively affect safety by enabling higher turning
speeds.
Source(s):
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=11215
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=11220
Application
Developed Areas
Cost
˚
Other Considerations
Drainage, emergency access, truck turning
templates, ADA ramp alignment, traffic signal
design
Action ID: 29.1
H-55
PILOT DIFFERENT RIGHT-TURN SLIP LANE ENHANCEMENTS
When/Where to Use
Right-turn slip lane enhancements should be incorporated into new construction and implemented at
intersections with high pedestrian activity, crash history, or where the current slip lane geometry
encourages high-speed turns.
Description
Pilot enhancements to existing
right-turn slip lanes to slow turning
speeds, improve yielding, and
increase visibility for pedestrians
and bicyclists. Treatments include
tighter radii and raised crosswalks
in the channelization. Buckeye
already incorporates good narrow-
angle slip lane geometry, so pilots
should focus on refinements, not
widening or increasing turning
speeds.
Associated Crash Types
Pedestrian Crashes
Effectiveness
Right-turn slip lane enhancements are associated
with a 44% reduction in all crashes.
Source(s):
https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/detail.php?f
acid=8496
Application
Developed Areas
Cost
˚˚˚˚
Other Considerations
Drainage, intersection geometry,
additional right-of-way (ROW)
Action ID: 29.1
H-56
POST CRASH CARE
H-57
TRACK INCIDENT RESPONSE PER FHWA TRAFFIC INCIDENT
MANAGEMENT (TIM) STANDARDS
When/Where to Use
FHWA Traffic Incident Management (TIM) standards should be implemented continuously on roadways
where quick, coordinated incident response is critical, including freeways, high-speed arterials,
congested areas.
TIM includes planning for the strategic placement of first responders, including the siting of fire stations
and temporary apparatus staging in high-demand areas, to reduce response times.
Description
Continue to monitor incident response time
standards in accordance with FHWA’s Traffic
Incident Management (TIM) performance
measures to improve roadway safety, minimize
congestion, and enhance interagency
coordination. Define and track key TIM metrics,
including time of incident notification, arrival of first
responder, roadway clearance time, and incident
clearance time. Collaborate with law enforcement,
fire, EMS, towing, and transportation agencies to
set shared performance goals, conduct after-
action reviews, and implement strategies that
improve detection, response, and clearance.
Application
Developed Areas,
Undeveloped Areas
Cost
˚˚
Other Considerations
Safety of responders and motorists, data accuracy
and consistency, responder training, technology
integration
Associated Crash Types
Secondary or chain-reaction crashes, fatal
crashes
Effectiveness
N/A
Action ID: 31
H-58
Page 39
City of Buckeye - Transportation Safety Plan
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX I:
TIERED PROJECT LIST
High Priority Projects
Project
ID
HRN
Project
Label *
Name
Road
Ownership **
KSI
People
Total
***
K
Crashes
***
SI
Crashes
***
Key Crash Trends/
HRN Explanation
Potential Safety Improvements
Top 3 CMFs
Strategy / Action
H-1
AA
SR 85 &
Broadway
Rd
ADOT/
Buckeye
10
1
5
- 71% of crashes were Angle
- 81% of angle crashes involved Unit 1 traveling in the
east or west directions
- Crashes peaked in 2022 (28 crashes)
- 4 of 6 KSI crashes involved "Ran Stop Sign" violation
- 5 serious injury crashes (4 Angle, 1 Other) where 3
involved an unrestrained driver
- Fatal crash was an Angle crash
- Install flashing beacons on the stop
signs for the EB/WB directions at SR 85
- Implement other stop sign
improvements such as duplicate signs,
increased sign size, reflective paneling,
pavement word markings, etc
- Improve lighting at the intersections
[447] Red flashing beacons at stop signs - 10%
reduction of crashes
[FHWA] Systematic low-cost countermeasures at
stop-controlled intersections - 10% reduction in
fatal and injury crashes; 15% reduction of
nighttime crashes; average cost-benefit ratio of
12:1
[320] Stop Control to Signalized - 67% in angle
crashes
[325] Stop Control to Signalized - 44% reduction in
all crashes
[8320] Lighting - 53% reduction in nighttime
crashes
INTERIM
2.1 - Install red flashing
beacons at stop signs
2.2 - Systematically
apply low-cost
countermeasures at stop-
controlled intersections
ULTIMATE
3.2 - Install traffic signal
8.2 - Install streetlights
H-2
AB
SR 85 &
Southern
Ave
ADOT/
MCDOT/
Buckeye
9
1
5
- 76% of crashes were Angle
- 69% of angle crashes involved Unit 1 traveling in the
east direction
- 26% of crashes involved "Ran Stop Sign" violation
- 43% of crashes involved a young driver
- 33% of crashes occurred under dark lighting
conditions
- All 6 KSI crashes were Angle crashes
- 3 serious injury crashes and 3 fatal crashes
- 2 of 3 fatal crashes involved an unrestrained driver,
and 1 involved impairment
- Install flashing beacons on the stop
signs for the EB/WB directions at SR 85
- Implement other stop sign
improvements such as duplicate signs,
increased sign size, reflective paneling,
pavement word markings, etc
- Improve lighting at the intersections
[447] Red flashing beacons at stop signs - 10%
reduction of crashes
[FHWA] Systematic low-cost countermeasures at
stop-controlled intersections - 10% reduction in
fatal and injury crashes; 15% reduction of
nighttime crashes; average cost-benefit ratio of
12:1
[320] Stop Control to Signalized - 67% in angle
crashes
[325] Stop Control to Signalized - 44% reduction in
all crashes
[8320] Lighting - 53% reduction in nighttime
crashes
INTERIM
2.1 - Install red flashing
beacons at stop signs
2.2 - Systematically
apply low-cost
countermeasures at stop-
controlled intersections
ULTIMATE
3.2 - Install traffic signal
8.2 - Install streetlights
* HRN Project Label corresponds with Figure 16 of Appendix C - Predictive Risk Assessment
** Road Ownership as of January 2026
*** 2019-2023 Crash Data for the Buckeye MPA from the Arizona Crash Information System (ACIS)
I - 1
High Priority Projects
Project
ID
HRN
Project
Label *
Name
Road
Ownership **
KSI
People
Total
***
K
Crashes
***
SI
Crashes
***
Key Crash Trends/
HRN Explanation
Potential Safety Improvements
Top 3 CMFs
Strategy / Action
H-3
AC
SR 85 &
Baseline Rd
ADOT/
MCDOT
7
2
5
- 69% of crashes were Angle crashes
- 59% of angle crashes involved Unit 1 traveling in the
east direction
- 35% of crashes involved a young driver
- All 7 KSI crashes were Angle crashes
- 5 of 7 KSI crashes involved "Ran Stop Sign" violation
- 1 of 2 fatal crashes involved an unrestrained driver
- Install flashing beacons on the stop
signs for the EB/WB directions at SR 85
- Implement other stop sign
improvements such as duplicate signs,
increased sign size, reflective paneling,
pavement word markings, etc
- Improve lighting at the intersections
[447] Red flashing beacons at stop signs - 10%
reduction of crashes
[FHWA] Systematic low-cost countermeasures at
stop-controlled intersections - 10% reduction in
fatal and injury crashes; 15% reduction of
nighttime crashes; average cost-benefit ratio of
12:1
[320] Stop Control to Signalized - 67% in angle
crashes
[325] Stop Control to Signalized - 44% reduction in
all crashes
[8320] Lighting - 53% reduction in nighttime
crashes
INTERIM
2.1 - Install red flashing
beacons at stop signs
2.2 - Systematically
apply low-cost
countermeasures at stop-
controlled intersections
ULTIMATE
3.2 - Install traffic signal
8.2 - Install streetlights
H-4
D
Watson Rd,
from
Durango St
to Lower
Buckeye Rd
Buckeye
4
0
4
- 59% of crashes were Rear End (51 crashes)
- 52% of crashes involved speeding (46 crashes)
- 2 Single Vehicle, 1 Head On, and 1 Rear End serious
injury crashes
- Evaluate speed limits and apply speed
management strategies to reduce
operating speeds on Watson
- Improve lighting along the corridor
(currently only present on one side of
the road)
- Reduce travel lane widths to less than
12 ft
- Install speed feedback signs
'[7825, 7827] Reduce travel lane widths - 24%-
42% reduction in crashes
[8320] Lighting - 53% reduction in nighttime
crashes
7.1 - Install speed
feedback signs
12.1 - Install streetlights
27.1 - Reduce travel lane
widths
28.2 - Reduce speed
limits
* HRN Project Label corresponds with Figure 16 of Appendix C - Predictive Risk Assessment
** Road Ownership as of January 2026
*** 2019-2023 Crash Data for the Buckeye MPA from the Arizona Crash Information System (ACIS)
I - 2
High Priority Projects
Project
ID
HRN
Project
Label *
Name
Road
Ownership **
KSI
People
Total
***
K
Crashes
***
SI
Crashes
***
Key Crash Trends/
HRN Explanation
Potential Safety Improvements
Top 3 CMFs
Strategy / Action
H-5
X
Miller Rd,
from
Maricopa
Rd to
Southern
Ave; and
Southern
Ave to
Broadway
Rd
Buckeye
4
1
3
- 49% of crashes were Rear End crashes
- 29 of 93 crashes happened at Broadway/Miller
- 45% of crashes at Broadway/Miller involved speeding,
and 45% involved a young driver
- 62% of crashes at Broadway/Miller were Rear End
crashes; 89% of rear end crashes at the intersection
were in the north or south directions
- 46% of crashes involved speeding
- 38% of crashes involved a young driver
- 3 serious injury crashes (Head On, Left Turn, Rear
End) where 1 involved speeding, 1 involved impairment,
and 2 involved a young driver
- Fatal crash was Other and happened at Miller/Warner
under dark lighting conditions
- BPMP: identifies the Southern Avenue/Miller Road
Corridor for short term improvements
- Evaluate speed limits and apply speed
management strategies to reduce
operating speeds on Miller
- Improve lighting along the corridor
- Install speed feedback signs
[6885] Speed feedback signs - 5% reduction in
crashes
[8320] Lighting - 53% reduction in nighttime
crashes
7.1 - Install speed
feedback signs
12.1 - Install streetlights
28.2 - Reduce speed
limits
H-6
J
Indian
School Rd
and
Jackrabbit
Trl
Buckeye
4
0
2
- 68% of crashes happened at Jackrabbit/Indian School
- Crashes peaked in 2022 (16 crashes) and were lowest
in 2020 (3 crashes)
- 38% of crashes were Rear End
- 32% of crashes involved speeding
- 30% of crashes involved young drivers
- 1 angle and 1 sideswipe serious injury crashes
- BPMP: identifies Indian School east of Jackrabbit Trail
for short term improvements
- Implement protected-only left-turn
phasing for all approaches at
Jackrabbit/Indian School
- If permissive left-turn operation is
maintained, remove negative left-turn
offsets for NB/SB approaches at
Jackrabbit/Indian School
- Install a raised median on Indian
School from Jackrabbit to 191st Ave
- Evaluate speed limits and apply speed
management strategies to reduce
operating speeds on Jackrabbit
[2252] Protected left turn phasing - 98% reduction
in LT crashes
[7792] Raised medians - 24% reduction in crashes
5.1 - Implement
protected-only left-turn
signal phasing
13.2 - Install raised
medians
14.2 - Design roads to
posted speed limit and
set lower speed limits in
areas with ped/bike
activity
28.2 - Reduce speed
limits
H-7
F
Sundance
Pkwy/Yuma
Rd &
Rainbow Rd
Buckeye
2
1
1
- 11 of 15 crashes were Angle
- 47% of crashes involved a young driver
- 1 fatal and 1 serious injury were both Angle crashes
- Install a traffic signal at
Sundance/Rainbow
- Remove negative offset for NB/SB
approaches at Sundance/Rainbow
[447] Red flashing beacons at stop signs - 10%
reduction of crashes
[320, 325] Traffic signal - 44%-67% reduction in
crashes
[6097] Remove negative offset - 38% reduction in
crashes
3.2 - Install traffic signal
5.2 - Remove negative
left-turn offset geometry
* HRN Project Label corresponds with Figure 16 of Appendix C - Predictive Risk Assessment
** Road Ownership as of January 2026
*** 2019-2023 Crash Data for the Buckeye MPA from the Arizona Crash Information System (ACIS)
I - 3
Medium Priority Projects
Project
ID
HRN
Project
Label *
Name
Road
Ownership **
KSI
People
Total
***
K
Crashes
***
SI
Crashes
***
Key Crash Trends/
HRN Explanation
Potential Safety Improvements
Top 3 CMFs
Strategy / Action
M-1
A
Yuma Rd,
from
Rainbow Rd
to Apache
Rd
Buckeye
11
0
11
- 2 of 3 ped/bike crashes resulted in serious injury
- 31% of crashes occurred in 2022 (89 crashes)
- 45% of crashes occurred at Yuma/Watson (126
crashes)
- Angle, Rear End, and Left Turn most common (79, 77,
70 crashes resp.)
- 55% of serious injury crashes involved a young driver
(6 of 11 crashes)
- HRN: High speeds
- Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP): identifies
the Yuma/Watson intersection for short term
improvements
- Implement protected-only left-turn
phasing for all approaches at
Yuma/Watson + Yuma/Sundance
- If permissive left-turn operation is
maintained, remove negative left-turn
offsets for EB/WB approaches at
Yuma/Watson + Yuma/Sundance
- Improve lighting along the corridor
(present only on the median) and at
unsignalized intersections
- Install restricted crossing U-turns
(RCUTs)
- Evaluate speed limits and apply speed
management strategies to reduce
operating speeds on Yuma
[2252] Protected left turn phasing - 98% reduction
in LT crashes
[8320] Lighting - 53% reduction in nighttime
crashes
[6097] Remove negative offset - 38% reduction in
crashes
3.1 - Install restricted
crossing U-turns
(RCUTs)
5.1 - Implement
protected-only left-turn
signal phasing
5.2 - Remove negative
left-turn offset geometry
12.1 - Install streetlights
14.1 - Install self-
enforcing road features
25.1 - Refine yellow and
all-red clearance interval
at signals
28.2 - Reduce speed
limits
M-2
K
MC 85, from
Perryville Rd
to 203rd Ave
(Currently
MCDOT)
MCDOT
10
1
6
- 55% of crashes happened at MC 85/Jackrabbit
- 33% of crashes were Rear End
- 6 serious injury crashes where 4 involved speeding,
and 2 involved impairment
- Fatal crash was a Head ON collision
- 33% of crashes occurred under dark lighting
conditions
- Enhance the visibility of signs and
pavement markings at MC 85/Jackrabbit
- Install raised medians on MC 85 and
Jackrabbit
- Improve lighting along the corridor and
intersections
[8320] Lighting - 53% reduction in nighttime
crashes
[7792] Raised medians - 24% reduction in crashes
12.1 - Install streetlights
13.2 - Install raised
medians
17.2 - Enhance visibility
of signs, signals, and
pavement markings at
intersections
M-3
AE
Baseline Rd,
from Turner
Road to half
mile west of
Wilson
Avenue.
MCDOT
7
2
1
- 4 of 10 crashes were Single Vehicle
- 6 crashes occurred in 2023, none in 2021
- Serious injury crash was a Single Vehicle crash
- 2 fatal crashes were both Head On collisions where 1
involved impairment
- Install rumble strips
- Install left turn lanes on the major road
approaches at intersections
- Install paved shoulders
- Install a raised median on Baseline
[6850, 6895] Rumble strips - 15.8%-20%
reduction in crashes
[268] Provide a left-turn lane on both major-road
approaches - 48% reduction in crashes
[7792] Raised medians - 24% reduction in crashes
9.1 - Install high-friction
pavement and rumble
strips
11.1 - Widen shoulders
13.1 - Install left turn
lanes
13.2 - Install raised
medians
* HRN Project Label corresponds with Figure 16 of Appendix C - Predictive Risk Assessment
** Road Ownership as of January 2026
*** 2019-2023 Crash Data for the Buckeye MPA from the Arizona Crash Information System (ACIS)
I - 4
Medium Priority Projects
Project
ID
HRN
Project
Label *
Name
Road
Ownership **
KSI
People
Total
***
K
Crashes
***
SI
Crashes
***
Key Crash Trends/
HRN Explanation
Potential Safety Improvements
Top 3 CMFs
Strategy / Action
M-4
AD
SR 85 &
Hazen Rd
(Currently
MCDOT &
ADOT)
ADOT/
MCDOT
7
2
1
- 69% of crashes were Angle crashes
- 78% of angle crashes involved Unit 1 traveling in
either the east or west direction
- Serious injury crash was an Angle crash
- 2 fatal crashes (Angle, Sideswipe) where 1 involved
speeding
- Install flashing beacons on the stop
signs for the EB/WB directions at Hazen
Rd/SR 85
- Implement other stop sign
improvements such as duplicate signs,
increased sign size, reflective paneling,
pavement word markings, etc
- Improve lighting at the intersections
[447] Red flashing beacons at stop signs - 10%
reduction of crashes
[FHWA] Systematic low-cost countermeasures at
stop-controlled intersections - 10% reduction in
fatal and injury crashes; 15% reduction of
nighttime crashes; average cost-benefit ratio of
12:1
[320] Stop Control to Signalized - 67% in angle
crashes
[325] Stop Control to Signalized - 44% reduction in
all crashes
[8320] Lighting - 53% reduction in nighttime
crashes
INTERIM
2.1 - Install red flashing
beacons at stop signs
2.2 - Systematically
apply low-cost
countermeasures at stop-
controlled intersections
ULTIMATE
3.2 - Install traffic signal
8.2 - Install streetlights
M-5
U
Monroe
Ave/MC85,
from Miller
Rd to
Shepards Trl
Buckeye
7
0
4
- 7 intersections on the project all recorded 9 or more
crashes
- Rear End, Left Turn, and Angle were most common
(34, 26, 21 crashes resp.)
- 4 serious injury crashes (Angle, Head On, Left Turn,
Pedestrian) where 2 involved speeding
- 25% of crashes involved speeding
- 4 Pedestrian crashes where 2 occurred under dark
lighting conditions
- BPMP: identifies the Monroe/9th St and Monroe/4th St
intersections for short term improvements
- Evaluate speed limits and apply speed
management strategies to reduce
operating speeds on MC 85
- Manage the spacing of accesses and
intersections along MC 85 from Miller to
9th St
- Improve lighting along the corridor
[8320] Lighting - 53% reduction in nighttime
crashes
[7792] Raised medians - 24% reduction in crashes
[178, 179] Spacing of access points - 5%-23%
reduction in crashes along 2-lane rural roads; 25%-
31% reduction in fatal and injury crashes along
urban arterials
12.1 - Install streetlights
13.1 - Implement access
management strategies
28.2 - Reduce speed
limits
* HRN Project Label corresponds with Figure 16 of Appendix C - Predictive Risk Assessment
** Road Ownership as of January 2026
*** 2019-2023 Crash Data for the Buckeye MPA from the Arizona Crash Information System (ACIS)
I - 5
Medium Priority Projects
Project
ID
HRN
Project
Label *
Name
Road
Ownership **
KSI
People
Total
***
K
Crashes
***
SI
Crashes
***
Key Crash Trends/
HRN Explanation
Potential Safety Improvements
Top 3 CMFs
Strategy / Action
M-6
Z
MC 85, from
Rooks Rd to
SR 85
(Currently
MCDOT)
MCDOT
5
1
3
- 51% of crashes were Rear End
- 34 of 45 crashes happened at MC 85/SR 85
- 40% of crashes involved speeding
- 3 serious injury crashes (2 Left Turn, 1 Angle) where 2
involved a young driver
- Fatal crash was a Rear End crash at MC 85/SR 85
- The width of the intersection and high truck volumes
may be contributing to traffic signal visibility issues
- Evaluate speed limits and apply speed
management strategies to reduce
operating speeds on MC 85
- Install flashing warning beacons on the
Traffic Signal Ahead warning signs for
the NB/SB directions at MC 85/SR 85
- Install retroreflective backplates on
the existing traffic signal heads
- Improve lighting at the intersections
- Install near-side traffic signal heads
and/or additional traffic signal heads on
the existing traffic signal mast arms and
poles
[1410] Retroreflective backplates - 15% reduction
in crashes
[8320] Lighting - 53% reduction in nighttime
crashes
8.2 - Install streetlights
17.2 - Enhance visibility
of signs, signals, and
pavement markings at
intersections
28.2 - Reduce speed
limits
M-7
W
Miller Rd,
from Beloat
Rd/Irwin
Ave/ Lower
River Rd to
Maricopa
Rd
Buckeye
4
0
3
- 16 of 62 crashes occurred at Baseline/Miller; 13 of 62
occurred at Monroe/Miller
- 32% of crashes were Angle, 27% were Rear End
- 42% of crashes involved a young driver
- 31% of crashes involved speeding
- 3 Serious injury crashes (2 Single Vehicle, 1 Left Turn)
where 2 involved speeding, 1 involved impairment, and
2 involved an unrestrained driver; all occurred under
dark lighting conditions
- Evaluate speed limits and apply speed
management strategies to reduce
operating speeds on Miller
- Improve lighting along the corridor
- Provide guidelines for left-turn
movements at the intersection of
Baseline/Miller
- Install a traffic signal at Baseline/Miller
- Implement protected-only left-turn
phasing at Monroe/Miller
[320, 325] Traffic signal - 44%-67% reduction in
crashes
[2252] Protected left turn phasing - 98% reduction
in LT crashes
[8320] Lighting - 53% reduction in nighttime
crashes
3.2 - Install traffic signal
5.1 - Implement
protected-only left-turn
signal phasing
12.1 - Install streetlights
14.2 - Design roads to
posted speed limit and
set lower speed limits in
areas with ped/bike
activity
25.1 - Refine yellow and
all-red clearance interval
at signals
28.2 - Reduce speed
limits
* HRN Project Label corresponds with Figure 16 of Appendix C - Predictive Risk Assessment
** Road Ownership as of January 2026
*** 2019-2023 Crash Data for the Buckeye MPA from the Arizona Crash Information System (ACIS)
I - 6
Medium Priority Projects
Project
ID
HRN
Project
Label *
Name
Road
Ownership **
KSI
People
Total
***
K
Crashes
***
SI
Crashes
***
Key Crash Trends/
HRN Explanation
Potential Safety Improvements
Top 3 CMFs
Strategy / Action
M-8
L
Tuthill
Rd/Jackrabb
it Trl &
Beloat Rd
(Currently
MCDOT)
MCDOT
4
1
1
- 27 of 32 crashes happened at Beloat/Jackrabbit
- 44% of crashes were Single Vehicle, 31% were Rear
End
- 41% of crashes involved speeding
- 25% involved a vehicle that ran off the roadway
- Serious injury crash was a Left Turn crash
- Fatal crash was denoted as Other
- Enhance visibility of signs and
pavement markings at Beloat/Jackrabbit
- Install intersection and curve warning
signs/chevrons for vehicles approaching
the intersection
- Install flashing beacons on the stop
sign for the EB approach at the
intersection
- Widen shoulders and install rumble
strips on the roadways
[6974] Rumble strips - 29.8% reduction in run off
road crashes
[10612, 10613, FHWA] Enhanced delineation for
horizontal curves - 18%-27.5% reduction in non-
intersection crashes; chevron signs reduce
crashes by 16%-25%, oversized chevron signs
reduce crashes by 15%, sequential chevron signs
reduce fatal and injury crashes by 60%, etc.
2.1 - Install red flashing
beacons at stop signs
9.1 - Install high-friction
pavement and rumble
strips
10.1 - Install enhanced
delineation for horizontal
curves
11.1 - Widen shoulders
and expand the clear
zone
17.2 - Enhance visibility
of signs, signals, and
pavement markings at
intersections
* HRN Project Label corresponds with Figure 16 of Appendix C - Predictive Risk Assessment
** Road Ownership as of January 2026
*** 2019-2023 Crash Data for the Buckeye MPA from the Arizona Crash Information System (ACIS)
I - 7
Medium Priority Projects
Project
ID
HRN
Project
Label *
Name
Road
Ownership **
KSI
People
Total
***
K
Crashes
***
SI
Crashes
***
Key Crash Trends/
HRN Explanation
Potential Safety Improvements
Top 3 CMFs
Strategy / Action
M-9
C
Apache Rd
and Yuma
Rd
Buckeye
2
1
1
- 5 of 9 crashes occurred at Yuma/Apache
(unsignalized intersection)
- 44% of crashes occurred during dark lighting
conditions
- Fatal crash was a bike crash
- Serious injury crash was a single vehicle crash
- Seg 5054 included due to high average speed
- Seg 5525 included due to high posted speed,
undivided 2 lanes configuration, and proximity to
alcohol establishment
- Evaluate speed limits and apply speed
management strategies to reduce
operating speeds on Apache and Yuma
- Install a raised median on Apache
- Install sidewalks on both sides of
Apache and Yuma
- Improve lighting at Yuma/Apache;
install dual lighting on corners,
especially southeast corner
- Enhance visibility of signs and
pavement markings at Yuma/Apache
[8320] Dual lighting on corner - 53% reduction
2.2 - Systematically
apply low-cost
countermeasures at stop-
controlled intersections
3.2 - Install traffic signal
12.1 - Install streetlights
14.1 - Install self-
enforcing road features
17.1 - Install dual lighting
at each corner of wide
intersections
17.2 - Enhance visibility
of signs, signals, and
pavement markings at
intersections
28.2 - Reduce speed
limits
M-10
E
Yuma Rd,
from
Verrado
Way to
Tuthill Rd
Buckeye
2
0
2
- 48% of crashes occurred on Seg 5171 (54 crashes)
- 1 Pedestrian and 1 Rear End serious injury crash
- 42% of crashes involved speeding (48 crashes)
- 58% of crashes were Rear End (65 crashes)
- BPMP: identifies the Yuma/Dean intersection and
Yuma Road: Dean Road to 0.15 miles east of Dean
Road for short term improvements
- Evaluate speed limits and apply speed
management strategies to reduce
operating speeds on Yuma
- Install speed feedback signs
- Enhance visibility of signs and
pavement markings at Yuma/Dean
[8950] Enhance visibility of signs, signals, and
pavement markings - 34.6% reduction in angle
crashes
7.1 - Install speed
feedback signs
17.2 - Enhance visibility
of signs, signals, and
pavement markings at
intersections
28.2 - Reduce speed
limits
* HRN Project Label corresponds with Figure 16 of Appendix C - Predictive Risk Assessment
** Road Ownership as of January 2026
*** 2019-2023 Crash Data for the Buckeye MPA from the Arizona Crash Information System (ACIS)
I - 8
Low Priority Projects
Project
ID
HRN
Project
Label *
Name
Road
Ownership **
KSI
People
Total
***
K
Crashes
***
SI
Crashes
***
Key Crash Trends/
HRN Explanation
Potential Safety Improvements
Top 3 CMFs
Strategy / Action
L-1
T
4th St, from
Baseline Rd
to Monroe
Ave
Buckeye
1
0
1
- Serious injury crash was an Angle crash that
happened at 4th/AZ Eastern under dark lighting
conditions
- Seg 5574 included due to high posted speed,
proximity to alcohol establishment, undivided 2 lanes
configuration, and intersection density
- Evaluate speed limits and apply speed
management strategies to reduce
operating speeds on 4th St
- Install a raised median on 4th St
- Manage the spacing of accesses and
intersections along 4th St from Baseline
Rd to Monroe Ave
- Improve lighting along the corridor
[8320] Lighting - 53% reduction in nighttime
crashes
[7792] Raised medians - 24% reduction in crashes
[178, 179] Spacing of access points - 5%-23%
reduction in crashes along 2-lane rural roads; 25%-
31% reduction in fatal and injury crashes along
urban arterials
12.1 - Install streetlights
13.1 - Implement access
management strategies
13.2 - Install raised
medians
28.2 - Reduce speed
limits
L-2
V
MC 85, from
Miller Rd to
255th Ave
(Currently
MCDOT)
MCDOT
0
0
0
- Seg 5570 included due to high posted speed,
proximity to alcohol establishment, and undivided 2
lanes configuration
- Evaluate speed limits and apply speed
management strategies to reduce
operating speeds on MC 85
- Install a raised median on MC 85
[7792] Raised medians - 24% reduction in crashes
13.2 - Install raised
medians
28.2 - Reduce speed
limits
L-3
R
Alarcon
Blvd, from
Miller Rd to
1st Ave
Buckeye
1
1
0
- Fatal crash was a Pedestrian collision
- Seg 5582 was included due to undivided 2 lanes
configuration, proximity to alcohol establishment, and
intersection density
- Provide sidewalks on both sides of
Alarcon, if feasible in the future due to
presence of open irrigation ditch
- Install a raised median on Alarcon
[7792] Raised medians - 24% reduction in crashes 13.2 - Install raised
medians
L-4
S
Baseline Rd,
from Miller
Rd to
Apache Rd
(Partially
MCDOT)
Buckeye/
MCDOT
1
0
1
- 6 of 19 crashes occurred at Apache/Baseline
- 37% of crashes were Left Turn crashes
- 47% of crashes involved a young driver
- Serious injury crash was a Single Vehicle crash that
occurred on a segment under dark lighting conditions
- Enhance visibility of signs and
pavements marking at Apache/Baseline
- Install lighting along Baseline from
Miller to Apache
- Remove sight obstructions for SB
turning vehicles at Apache/Baseline
[307] Remove or relocate sight obstructions - 48%
reductions in crashes
[FHWA] Retroreflective backplates - 15%
reduction in crashes
[8320] Lighting - 53% reduction in nighttime
crashes
5.3 - Remove or relocate
visual obstructions
12.1 - Install streetlights
17.2 - Enhance visibility
of signs, signals, and
pavement markings at
intersections
* HRN Project Label corresponds with Figure 16 of Appendix C - Predictive Risk Assessment
** Road Ownership as of January 2026
*** 2019-2023 Crash Data for the Buckeye MPA from the Arizona Crash Information System (ACIS)
I - 9
Low Priority Projects
Project
ID
HRN
Project
Label *
Name
Road
Ownership **
KSI
People
Total
***
K
Crashes
***
SI
Crashes
***
Key Crash Trends/
HRN Explanation
Potential Safety Improvements
Top 3 CMFs
Strategy / Action
L-5
I
McDowell
Rd, from
Verrado
Way to
211th Ave
Buckeye
1
1
0
- 18 of 25 crashes happened at McDowell/Verrado
- 44% of crashes were Rear End
-32% of crashes involved speeding
- Fatal crash was a left turn crash
- Segment included due to high posted speed
- Evaluate speed limits and apply speed
management strategies to reduce
operating speeds on Verrado
- Install intersection and curve warning
signs/chevrons on McDowell for vehicle
approaching the intersection
- Implement protected-only left-turn
phasing at McDowell/Verrado
[6885] Speed feedback signs - 5% reduction in
crashes
[FHWA] Refine yellow and all-red intervals - 36%-
50% reduction in red-light running, 8%-14%
reduction in total crashes, 12% reduction in injury
crashes
[10612, 10613, FHWA] Enhanced delineation for
horizontal curves - 18%-27.5% reduction in non-
intersection crashes; chevron signs reduce
crashes by 16%-25%, oversized chevron signs
reduce crashes by 15%, sequential chevron signs
reduce fatal and injury crashes by 60%, etc.
7.1 - Install speed
feedback signs
10.1 - Install enhanced
delineation for horizontal
curves
14.1 - Install self-
enforcing road features
14.2 - Design roads to
posted speed limit and
set lower speed limits in
areas with ped/bike
activity
25.1 - Refine yellow and
all-red clearance interval
at signals
L-6
N
Beloat Rd,
from Dean
Rd to
CEMEX
driveway
MCDOT
3
0
1
- Serious injury crash was Left Turn collision
- Seg 5095 included due to high posted speed,
undivided 2 lanes configuration, and intersection
density
- Evaluate speed limits and apply speed
management strategies to reduce
operating speeds on Beloat
- Install a raised median along the
corridor
[8320] Lighting - 53% reduction in nighttime
crashes
[7792] Raised medians - 24% reduction in crashes
13.2 - Install raised
medians
28.2 - Reduce speed
limits
L-7
O
Rainbow
Rd, from MC
85 to
Mountain
Ave/
Monroe Ave
MCDOT
1
0
1
- 18 of 20 crashes happened at MC 85/Rainbow
- 45% of crashes were Rear End
- 35% of crashes involved a young driver
- 35% of crashes occurred under dark lighting
conditions
- Serious injury crash was a Single Vehicle crash
- Enhance visibility of signs and
pavement markings at MC 85/Rainbow
- Improve lighting at the intersection
[8320] Lighting - 53% reduction in nighttime
crashes
[FHWA] Retroreflective backplates - 15%
reduction in crashes
12.1 - Install streetlights
17.2 - Enhance visibility
of signs, signals, and
pavement markings at
intersections
L-8
B
Sundance
Ave
Intersection
s, by
Watson Rd
Buckeye
2
0
1
- 89% of crashes occurred at Watson/Sundance (74
crashes)
- Rear End, Angle, Left Turn most common (25, 20, and
19 crashes resp.)
- 36% of crashes involved a young driver (30 crashes)
- Implement protected-only left-turn
phasing for all approaches at
Watson/Sundance
- Remove negative left-turn offsets for
all approaches at Watson/Sundance,
especially E-W
[multiple] refine signal timing - 15 to 64%
reduction
[2252] Protected left turn phasing - 98% reduction
in LT crashes
[6097] Remove negative offset - 38% reduction in
crashes
1.1 - Review and refine
signal timing
5.1 - Implement
protected-only left-turn
signal phasing
5.2 - Remove negative
left-turn offset geometry
* HRN Project Label corresponds with Figure 16 of Appendix C - Predictive Risk Assessment
** Road Ownership as of January 2026
*** 2019-2023 Crash Data for the Buckeye MPA from the Arizona Crash Information System (ACIS)
I - 10
Low Priority Projects
Project
ID
HRN
Project
Label *
Name
Road
Ownership **
KSI
People
Total
***
K
Crashes
***
SI
Crashes
***
Key Crash Trends/
HRN Explanation
Potential Safety Improvements
Top 3 CMFs
Strategy / Action
L-9
H
McDowell
Rd, from
Jackrabbit
Trail to
191st Ave
MCDOT
1
0
1
- 21 of 26 crashes happened at Jackrabbit/McDowell
- Serious injury crash was a pedestrian crash
- Rear End, Angle, and Left Turn were most common (8,
6, 5 crashes resp.)
- 35% of crashes occurred under dark lighting
conditions
- On HRN because it's 50 mph undivided road
- Install sidewalks along the corridor
- Improve lighting along the corridor
[8320] Lighting - 53% reduction in nighttime
crashes
12.1 - Install streetlights
L-10
P
Watson Rd
Intersection
s at
Southern
Ave; Roeser
Rd;
Broadway
Rd
Buckeye
1
0
1
- 58% of crashes happened at Broadway/Watson
- 42% of crashes were Angle
- 33% of crashes occurred under dark lighting
conditions
- Serious injury crash was an Angle crash at
Southern/Watson
- Enhance visibility of signs and
pavement markings at each intersection
- Improve lighting at each of the
intersections
- Install a traffic signal at
Broadway/Watson
- Implement protected-only left-turn
phasing at all approaches of
Watson/Southern
- Retroreflective tape on the back plates
[320, 325] Traffic signal - 44%-67% reduction in
crashes
[2252] Protected left turn phasing - 98% reduction
in LT crashes
[8320] Lighting - 53% reduction in nighttime
crashes
3.2 - Install traffic signal
5.1 - Implement
protected-only left-turn
signal phasing
12.1 - Install streetlights
17.2 - Enhance visibility
of signs, signals, and
pavement markings at
intersections
L-11
X
Miller Rd,
from
Maricopa
Rd to
Southern
Ave
Buckeye
4
1
3
- 49% of crashes were Rear End crashes
- 29 of 93 crashes happened at Broadway/Miller
- 45% of crashes at Broadway/Miller involved speeding,
and 45% involved a young driver
- 62% of crashes at Broadway/Miller were Rear End
crashes; 89% of rear end crashes at the intersection
were in the north or south directions
- 46% of crashes involved speeding
- 38% of crashes involved a young driver
- 3 serious injury crashes (Head On, Left Turn, Rear
End) where 1 involved speeding, 1 involved impairment,
and 2 involved a young driver
- Fatal crash was Other and happened at Miller/Warner
under dark lighting conditions
- BPMP: identifies the Southern Avenue/Miller Road
Corridor for short term improvements
- Evaluate speed limits and apply speed
management strategies to reduce
operating speeds on Miller
- Improve lighting along the corridor
- Install speed feedback signs
[6885] Speed feedback signs - 5% reduction in
crashes
[8320] Lighting - 53% reduction in nighttime
crashes
7.1 - Install speed
feedback signs
12.1 - Install streetlights
28.2 - Reduce speed
limits
* HRN Project Label corresponds with Figure 16 of Appendix C - Predictive Risk Assessment
** Road Ownership as of January 2026
*** 2019-2023 Crash Data for the Buckeye MPA from the Arizona Crash Information System (ACIS)
I - 11
Low Priority Projects
Project
ID
HRN
Project
Label *
Name
Road
Ownership **
KSI
People
Total
***
K
Crashes
***
SI
Crashes
***
Key Crash Trends/
HRN Explanation
Potential Safety Improvements
Top 3 CMFs
Strategy / Action
L-12
E
Yuma Rd,
from Dean
Rd to
Verrado
Way
Buckeye
2
0
2
- 48% of crashes occurred on Seg 5171 (54 crashes)
- 1 Pedestrian and 1 Rear End serious injury crash
- 42% of crashes involved speeding (48 crashes)
- 58% of crashes were Rear End (65 crashes)
- BPMP: identifies the Yuma/Dean intersection and
Yuma Road: Dean Road to 0.15 miles east of Dean
Road for short term improvements
- Evaluate speed limits and apply speed
management strategies to reduce
operating speeds on Yuma
- Install speed feedback signs
- Enhance visibility of signs and
pavement markings at Yuma/Dean
[8950] Enhance visibility of signs, signals, and
pavement markings - 34.6% reduction in angle
crashes
7.1 - Install speed
feedback signs
17.2 - Enhance visibility
of signs, signals, and
pavement markings at
intersections
28.2 - Reduce speed
limits
* HRN Project Label corresponds with Figure 16 of Appendix C - Predictive Risk Assessment
** Road Ownership as of January 2026
*** 2019-2023 Crash Data for the Buckeye MPA from the Arizona Crash Information System (ACIS)
I - 12