to Boards and Commissions

Summary
This item transmits recommendations from the Mayor and Council for appointment or
reappointment to City Boards and Commissions.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by the Mayor's Office.




Page 11
ATTACHMENT A




To: City Council Date: September 7, 2022
From: Mayor Kate Gallego

Subject: REVISED* FOR ADD-ON BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS – APPOINTEES

The purpose of this memo is to provide recommendations for appointments to the
following Boards and Commissions:

Environmental Quality and Sustainability Commission

I recommend the following for reappointment:

Sarah Porter
Ms. Porter is serving her third term to expire August 31, 2024.

*Laveen Village Planning Committee

Councilmember Carlos Garcia recommends the following for appointment:

Dean Chiarelli
Mr. Chiarelli is a Clinical Associate Professor at Arizona State University and a resident
of District 8. He fills a vacancy for a term to expire November 19, 2023.

Mayor’s Human Trafficking Task Force

I recommend the following for appointment:

Rick Leyvas
Lieutenant Leyvas is an Investigations Lieutenant with the City of Phoenix Police
Department. He replaces Lieutenant Dave Saflar in the ex-officio position.

Phoenix Women’s Commission

I recommend the following for appointment:




Page 12
Christina Spicer
Ms. Spicer is the Co-Chief Executive Officer at Girl Scouts–Arizona Cactus-Pine
Council and a resident of District 2. She fills a vacancy for a term to expire September
7, 2025.

Elizabeth Wood
Ms. Wood is the Executive Director at Matrescence and a resident of District 6. She fills
a vacancy for a term to expire September 7, 2025.

South Mountain Village Planning Committee

Councilmember Carlos Garcia recommends the following for appointment:

Darlene Jackson
Ms. Jackson is life coach and a resident of District 8. She fills a vacancy for a partial
term to expire November 19, 2022.




Page 13



Report

Liquor License - Special Event - St. Luke Roman Catholic Parish Phoenix

Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.

Summary

Applicant
Jonathan Leithmann

Location
19644 N. 7th Ave.
Council District: 2

Function
Festival

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Oct. 21, 2022 - 4 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 350 attendees
Oct. 22, 2022 - 4 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 400 attendees
Oct. 23, 2022 - 4 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 250 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 14



Report

Liquor License - Special Event - Cancer Support Community Arizona

Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.

Summary

Applicant
Deborah DiCarlo

Location
360 E. Palm Lane
Council District: 4

Function
Dinner

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Oct. 22, 2022 - 5 p.m. to 10 p.m. / 300 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 15



Report

Liquor License - Little Anita's Mexican Food

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 201928.

Summary

Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
1516 E. Thomas Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 4

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Sept. 11, 2022.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.

Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.


Page 16


Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.

Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Applicant is committed to upholding the highest standards to for business and
maintaining compliance with applicable laws. Managers and staff will be trained in the
techniques of legal and responsible alcohol sales and service.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
"Little Anita's Mexican Food is a family-friendly, casual New Mexican restaurant. The
restaurant serves breakfast, lunch and dinner, including enchiladas, huevos rancheros,
green chile cheeseburgers and their famous sopapillas. Applicant would like to offer
alcoholic beverages to guests 21 and over as an incident to the dishes served."

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Little Anita's Mexican Food
Liquor License Map - Little Anita's Mexican Food

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 17
Liquor License Data: LITTLE ANITA'S MEXICAN FOOD
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 8 4

Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 1

Liquor Store 9 4 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 14 6

Restaurant 12 6 3



Crime Data

Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***

Property Crimes 54.11 107.48 132.69

Violent Crimes 10.22 22.10 29.83

*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 53 106

Total Violations 93 164




Page 18
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1106002 1339 64 % 17 % 24 %

1106004 1456 47 % 27 % 3%

1107011 887 13 % 17 % 33 %

1107012 1519 40 % 19 % 29 %

1116021 814 0% 42 % 73 %

1116023 1963 21 % 19 % 82 %

1117001 1792 45 % 32 % 41 %

1117004 1227 75 % 20 % 21 %

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 19
Liquor License Map: LITTLE ANITA'S MEXICAN FOOD
1516 E THOMAS ROAD




Ü
Date: 7/14/2022
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 20



Report

Liquor License - Fuku Sushi

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 202338.

Summary

Applicant
Matthew Serventi, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
5538 N. 7th St., Ste. 110
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 6

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Sept. 20, 2022.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.

Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations


Page 21

on file with the AZ Department of Liquor Licenses and Control and, for locations within
the boundaries of Phoenix, the number of aggregate calls for police service within the
last 12 months for the address listed.

Fuku Sushi & Teppan (Series 12)
940 E. University Blvd., Tucson
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None

Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.

Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have other restaurants in Tucson, Tempe and San Diego that have liquor licenses. I
comply with all rules and regulations pertaining to liquor and having a business. All of
my employees go through extensive liquor training to understand the importance of
liquor safety. I understand this license is a privilege to have and must be upheld to the
highest standard of safety, training and knowledge.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“I believe in stimulating the local 7th street community. We will create a fun, safe,
welcoming environment for the community. We hope to create multiple jobs within this
area by offering high paying stable jobs. I would like to give back to the local area as
well by sponsoring any of the local schools, sports teams and anyone else in
between.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Fuku Sushi
Liquor License Map - Fuku Sushi

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department

Page 22
Liquor License Data: FUKU SUSHI
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 1 0

Bar 6 8 3

Beer and Wine Bar 7 11 0

Liquor Store 9 6 3

Beer and Wine Store 10 9 1

Restaurant 12 53 19


Crime Data

Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***

Property Crimes 54.11 98.93 103.71

Violent Crimes 10.22 11.83 11.35

*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 53 44

Total Violations 93 66




Page 23
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1065012 1594 61 % 18 % 32 %

1066002 2064 83 % 7% 5%

1075001 758 80 % 2% 3%

1075002 1458 74 % 7% 15 %

1075003 1599 46 % 15 % 14 %

1076011 319 65 % 16 % 46 %

1076012 904 38 % 24 % 23 %

1076013 1748 38 % 8% 17 %

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 24
Liquor License Map: FUKU SUSHI
5538 N 7TH ST




Ü
Date: 7/26/2022
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 25



Report

Liquor License - Special Event - Local First Arizona Foundation

Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.

Summary

Applicant
Kimber Lanning

Location
67 W. Culver St.
Council District: 7

Function
Festival

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Nov. 5, 2022 - 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. / 10,000 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 26



Report

Liquor License - Legends at Arizona Federal

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 06070254.

Summary

Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent

License Type
Series 6 - Bar

Location
400 W. Washington St.
Zoning Classification: DTC-Business Core
Council District: 7

This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a bar. This location was
previously licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Sept. 24, 2022.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.

Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations


Page 27

on file with the AZ Department of Liquor Licenses and Control and, for locations within
the boundaries of Phoenix, the number of aggregate calls for police service within the
last 12 months for the address listed.

Ak-Chin Pavilion (Series 6)
2121 N. 83rd Ave., Phoenix
Calls for police service: 55
Liquor license violations: None

Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.

Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“We currently own and operate other establishments in the Valley. We will continue to
ensure our employees are trained in the Title 4 liquor law.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The event venue has operated successfully with a liquor license. We would like to
continue to offer our guests an alcoholic beverage of their choice while attending their
event.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Legends at Arizona Federal
Liquor License Map - Legends at Arizona Federal

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31



Report

Liquor License - Special Event - Girl Scouts - Arizona Cactus-Pine Council, Inc.

Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.

Summary

Applicant
Alycia Elfstrom

Location
1611 E. Dobbins Road
Council District: 8

Function
Networking Event

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Nov. 5, 2022 - 6 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 600 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 32



Report

Liquor License - Gary's Smoke Shop

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 202955.

Summary

Applicant
Ayman Shorees, Agent

License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store

Location
2843 N. 24th St.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 8

This request is for a new liquor license for a smoke shop. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Sept. 9, 2022.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.

Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.


Page 33


Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.

Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I hold a certificate for 'The Basic Liquor Law Training'. This training provided me the
opportunity of learning the importance and significance of obtaining a beer and wine
license. I am assured to uphold the laws and regulations about beer and wine license.
I have never been involved in any criminal activity, no record of getting in trouble with
law and authorities.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This store will provide a safe and secure place for the neighborhood to buy beer and
wine. The location will be convenient for the people in neighborhood who may not
have access to transportation. Adding the long time experience of the owner with
running a store while upholding all the laws and regulations, the store will be a safe,
secure and convenience place for the customers to purchase quality liquor.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Gary's Smoke Shop
Liquor License Map - Gary's Smoke Shop

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 34
Liquor License Data: GARY'S SMOKE SHOP
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 1 0

Bar 6 3 2

Beer and Wine Bar 7 3 2

Liquor Store 9 6 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 10 2

Restaurant 12 11 4


Crime Data

Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***

Property Crimes 54.11 120.96 135.45

Violent Crimes 10.22 27.17 25.90

*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 53 88

Total Violations 93 140




Page 35
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1107022 2172 32 % 20 % 32 %

1108022 1168 33 % 16 % 7%

1115011 2020 44 % 16 % 43 %

1115021 1414 46 % 21 % 34 %

1115022 2109 42 % 7% 17 %

1116011 1492 55 % 13 % 39 %

1116012 1200 65 % 11 % 40 %

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 36
Liquor License Map: GARY'S SMOKE SHOP
2843 N 24TH ST




Ü
Date: 7/13/2022
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 37



Report

Liquor License - Metaverse Ghost Kitchens

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 203375.

Summary

Applicant
Theresa Morse, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
2145 E. Van Buren St.
Zoning Classification: C-3
Council District: 8

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This location requires a
Use Permit to allow outdoor alcohol consumption and outdoor dining as accessory
uses to a restaurant. This business has plans to open in October 2022.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Sept. 19, 2022.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.




Page 38

Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This information is not provided due to the multiple ownership interest held by the
applicant in the State of Arizona.

Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.

Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I am currently part owner on six restaurants throughout the valley. As a owner I have
never had any liquor law violations against any of the licenses. I will be attending
current liquor law training to ensure that I and my staff are familiar with all new liquor
laws to avoid sales to underage, recognizing obviously intoxicated customers as well
as the valid types of identification in order to sell alcoholic beverages. Additionally, I will
apply for a Use Permit to be able to serve food and alcoholic beverages on the patio.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“My establishment will be an asset to the downtown Phoenix renovation. I will be
providing food and alcoholic beverages to customers while they watch digital art on
screens within the restaurant. This is a unique atmosphere that will draw customers
from various parts of the valley to enjoy the ambience while enjoying their meal. The
food and art is the primary purpose of this business. Many local residents do not have
access to this type of venue. Therefore, a liquor license will be in the best interest of
the community albeit food is primary.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Metaverse Ghost Kitchens
Liquor License Map - Metaverse Ghost Kitchens

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.

Page 39
Liquor License Data: METAVERSE GHOST KITCHENS
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 1 1

Liquor Store 9 3 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 12 4

Restaurant 12 4 1


Crime Data

Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***

Property Crimes 54.11 94.42 126.53

Violent Crimes 10.22 44.13 77.70

*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 53 220

Total Violations 93 467


Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1133002 1119 0% 11 % 91 %

1133003 901 22 % 23 % 72 %

1134001 589 0% 0% 100 %

1138012 834 21 % 19 % 47 %

1139001 1126 20 % 18 % 81 %

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 40
Liquor License Map: METAVERSE GHOST KITCHENS
2145 E VAN BUREN ST




Ü
Date: 7/25/2022
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 41



Report

Bingo License - Friendly Village of Orangewood Social Club Bingo

Request for a Class A Bingo License.

Summary
State law requires City Council approval before a State Bingo License can be issued.

Bingo License Types
Class A - gross receipts shall not exceed $15,600 per year
Class B - gross receipts shall not exceed $300,000 per year
Class C - anticipated gross receipts may exceed $300,000 per year

Applicant
Peggy Royster

Location
2650 W. Union Hills Drive, Clubhouse
Zoning Classification: R1-6
Council District: 1

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 42



PAYMENT ORDINANCE (Ordinance S-48964) (Items 12-16)
Ordinance S-48964 is a request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse funds, up to amounts indicated below, for the purpose of
paying vendors, contractors, claimants and others, and providing
additional payment authority under certain existing city contracts. This
section also requests continuing payment authority, up to amounts
indicated below, for the following contracts, contract extensions and/or
bids awarded. As indicated below, some items below require payment
pursuant to Phoenix City Code section 42-13.

12 Tempe Camera Repair, Incorporated
For $20,000.00 in payment authority for a new contract, entered on or
about Sept. 1, 2022, for a term of five years for photofinishing services
for the Phoenix Fire Department. The contract supports the Phoenix
Strategic Plan, under the study area of Social Services Delivery,
specifically, building healthy, caring communities; develop new and
innovative mechanisms to improve the alignment and efficiency of local
and citywide social services resources to meet neighborhood needs.

13 Federal Highway Administration
For $16,000.00 in payment authority to the Federal Highway
Administration for the Street Transportation Department. The funds will be
used for the City's participation in a nationwide pooled-fund study that will
investigate the newly published guidelines regarding traffic signal change
and clearance intervals. A payment of $4,000.00 will be made annually for
the next four years.

14 Arizona Municipal Water Users Association - Annual
Payment Authorization
For $432,429.00 in payment authority for membership renewal to the
Arizona Municipal Water Users Association for the Water Services
Department. The Arizona Municipal Water Users Association supports the


Page 43

development of urban water policy and works collaboratively with water
stakeholders to devise practical solutions to water problems to ensure
sustainable growth for Arizona.

15 Settlement of Claim(s) Fox 10 v. City of Phoenix
To make payment of up to $36,000.00 in settlement of claims(s) in Fox
10 v. City of Phoenix, 20-1097-001, GL, PD, for the Finance Department
pursuant to Phoenix City Code Chapter 42. This is a property damage
claim presented by Fox 10 arising from a water main break that occurred
on May 19, 2021.

16 Settlement of Claim(s) Saucedo v. City of Phoenix
To make payment of up to $28,127.78 in settlement of claim(s) in
Salvador Marin Saucedo v. City of Phoenix, 21-0091-002, GL, PD, for
the Finance Department pursuant to Phoenix City Code Chapter 42. This
is a settlement for a water main break claim that occurred on July 26,
2021, presented by Salvador Marin Saucedo.




Page 44



Report

Acceptance and Dedication of an Easement for Public Utility Purposes
(Ordinance S-48974)

Request for the City Council to accept and dedicate an easement for public utility
purposes; further ordering the ordinance recorded.

Summary
Accepting the property interests below meets the Planning and Development
Department's Single Instrument Dedication Process requirement prior to releasing any
permits to applicants.

Easement (a)
Applicant: Sandra Trejo and Bruno Vazquez, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: 1707 and 1715 E. Kelton Lane
File: FN 220067
Council District: 3

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development and Finance departments.




Page 45



Report

Grant of a Public Utility Easement on City-owned Property Near Tatum
Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive (Ordinance S-48968)

Request the City Council to grant a public utility easement for consideration of $1
and/or other valuable consideration, for installation of an underground distribution
electrical line to Well 308 on City-owned property in the Arizona Public Service
Company service area, and further ordering the Ordinance recorded.

Summary
This public utility easement is more fully described in the legal description ("Easement
Premises") recorded with the ordinance and will be granted to all public service
corporations and telecommunication corporations (collectively "Grantee") providing
utility service to the property located near Tatum Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive in
perpetuity, so long as the Grantee uses the Easement Premises for the purposes
herein specified, subject to the following terms and conditions:

A. Grantee is hereby granted the right to construct, reconstruct, replace, repair,
operate and maintain utility facilities together with appurtenant fixtures for use in
connection therewith (collectively "Grantee Facilities") to, through, across and
beyond Grantor's property within the Easement Premises. Subject to the notice
requirements provided in paragraph "I," Grantee shall at all times have the right of
full and free ingress and egress to and along the Easement Premises for the
purposes herein specified. Grantee acknowledges and accepts that Grantee shall
share the Easement Premises with other Grantees and shall use such Easement
Premises with other Grantees in accordance with and consistent with industry
standards and customs for shared use. Grantor agrees to coordinate the location of
Grantee's Facilities within the Easement Premises and to pay costs for relocation of
Grantee's Facilities as provided in paragraph "F."
B. Grantor shall not locate, erect or construct, or permit to be located or erected or
constructed, any building or structure within the limits of the Easement Premises.
However, Grantor reserves all other rights, interests, and uses of the Easement
Premises that are not inconsistent with Grantee's easement rights herein conveyed
and which do not interfere with or endanger any of the Grantee Facilities.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Grantor shall not have the right to lower by more
than one foot or raise by more than two feet the surface grade of Easement


Page 46

Premises without the prior written consent by the Grantee whose facilities will be
affected by the change of elevation.
C. Grantee shall not have the right to use the Easement Premises to store gasoline or
petroleum products, hazardous or toxic substances, or flammable materials;
provided however, that this prohibition shall not apply to any material, equipment or
substance contained in, or a part of, the Grantee Facilities, provided that Grantee
must comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations in
connection therewith. Additionally, the Easement Premises may not be used for the
storage of construction-related materials or to park or store construction-related
vehicles or equipment except on a temporary basis to construct, reconstruct,
replace, repair, operate or maintain the Grantee Facilities.
D. Grantor shall maintain an appropriate three-foot clear area around all edges of all
equipment pads for Grantee Facilities in addition to a clear operational area that
extends 12 feet immediately in front of all transformer or switching cabinet
openings, within the Easement Premises. No obstruction, trees, shrubs, fixtures or
permanent structures shall be placed or permitted by Grantor within said areas.
Grantee is hereby granted the right to trim, prune, cut, and clear away trees, brush,
shrubs or other obstruction within said areas.
E. Grantee shall exercise reasonable care to avoid damage to the Easement Premises
and all improvements thereon and agrees that following any work or use by Grantee
within the Easement Premises, the affected area, including without limitation, all
pavement, landscaping, concrete and other improvements permitted within the
Easement Premises pursuant to this easement will be restored by Grantee to as
close to original condition as is reasonably possible, at the expense of Grantee.
F. Grantor reserves the right to require the relocation of Grantee Facilities to a new
location within Grantor's property; provided however, that: 1) Grantor pays the
entire cost of redesigning and relocating existing Grantee Facilities to the new
location; and 2) Grantor provides Grantee with a new and substantially similar
public utility easement at no cost to Grantee. After relocation of Grantee Facilities to
the new easement area, Grantee shall abandon its rights to use the Easement
Premises granted in this easement without cost or consequence to Grantor.
G. Each public service corporation and telecommunication services corporation as a
Grantee shall coordinate and work with other Grantees in the use of the Easement
Premises. In the event that a third party or other Grantee requests the relocation of
existing Grantee Facilities to a new location (whether or not) within the Easement
Premises, the requesting party shall pay the entire cost of redesigning and
relocating the existing Grantee Facilities.
H. Grantee shall not have the right to transfer, convey or assign its interests in this
easement to any individual, corporation or other entity without the prior written
consent of Grantor, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Grantee
shall notify Grantor of any proposed transfer, conveyance or assignment of any


Page 47

rights granted herein at address listed below.
I. Except in emergencies or exigent circumstances such as service restoration,
Grantee agrees to contact Grantor at least one business day prior to Grantee's
entrance onto the Easement Premises where the Easement Premises are located:
1) on a site that includes Aviation Department facilities; 2) water and wastewater
treatment facilities; 3) Police Department headquarters located at 620 W
Washington St.; 4) Fire Department headquarters located at 150 S 12th St.; 5) City
Hall located at 200 W Washington St.; 6) City Court Building located at 300 W
Washington St.; 7) Calvin C. Goode Building located at 251 W Washington St.; 8)
Transit Operations Center located at 320 N 1st Ave. or West Transit Facility located
at 405 N 79th Ave.; or 9) in a secured or fenced area.

Location
Near Tatum Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive.
Council District: 2

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton, Deputy City Manager Karen
Peters and the Water Services and Finance departments.




Page 48



Report

IT Research, Advisory and Consulting Services Qualified Vendor List Extensions
(Ordinance S-48977)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to extend the term of the
existing qualified vendor list for professional Information Technology (IT) research,
advisory, and consulting services; authorize contracts or contract extensions with the
current list of vendors; and authorize additional expenditures on an as-needed basis
for the Information Technology Services (ITS) Department in support of multiple City
departments. The additional expenditures will not exceed $5 million. Remaining funds
previously authorized by the City Council will be applied to the extended term. Further
request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.

Summary
The City has a large and diverse technology environment, requiring continuous
projects and initiatives to maintain operations and implement new technology
solutions. The IT Research, Advisory and Consulting Services Qualified Vendor List
(QVL) allows the City to engage with the qualified firms to provide the most current
industry research, develop strategy, perform fit-gap and similar analysis, recommend
process improvements, assist with industry-driven requirement development for new
technologies, assist in the development of IT solicitations, and perform pre-project
planning and quality assurance.

Recent advisory and consulting services have provided critical support to IT projects
and initiatives Citywide, including ShapePHX, phoenix.gov, firewall replacements,
disaster recovery requirements, and the Fire Department's projects for modernization
of the Computer-Aided Dispatch system and Records Management System. Current
initiatives underway include the Police Department's Records Management System
and assessment of the City's Time and Labor system and time-capturing methods.
Authorizing the extension and additional funds would also allow the Planning and
Development Department to continue to utilize services to provide project oversight,
quality assurance support services, and project management support related to
ShapePHX.

Procurement
The current qualified vendor list was developed through a competitive procurement


Page 49

and was approved by the City Council in February 2018. No changes are being made
to the approved list of vendors. Approved vendors are:

Qualified for Small Engagements:
· Cadenza, LLC;
· CISOSHARE;
· Dimension Systems, Inc.;
· Education, Leadership and Analytics, LLC;
· Gaea Global Technologies, Inc.;
· ISOutsource;
· Mission Critical Partners;
· OZ Engineering;
· Paradigm Solutions, LLC;
· Paramount Software Solutions, Inc.;
· Rishaank, LLC;
· Securance LLC;
· SeNet International Corporation;
· Sensi Project Solutions, Inc.;
· ServiceTec International, Inc.; and
· The Evolvers Group, L. P.

Qualified for Any Engagement:
· Arcadis U.S., Inc.;
· Ernst & Young;
· Gartner, Inc.;
· IDC Research, Inc.;
· Public Consulting Group, Inc.;
· Slalom LLC;
· Timmons Group, Inc.; and
· Zolon Tech, Inc.

Contract Term
The term of this qualified vendor list would be extended through Feb. 7, 2024.

Financial Impact
This amendment will increase the authorization for these contracts by an additional $5
million for a new total aggregate not to exceed $12.5 million. Funding is available in
various departments' budgets.


Page 50


Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The IT Research, Advisory and Consulting Services QVL was originally approved by

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Information
Technology Services Department.




Page 51



Report

Citywide Public Records Request System Indemnification and Liability
Exemption Request (Ordinance S-48989)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to grant an exemption from
the indemnification and liability provisions of section 42-18 of the City Code and allow
inclusion of indemnification and limitation of liability provisions in the agreement with
GovQA, LLC as previously authorized by Ordinance S-48022 for a Public Records
Request System. No additional funds are needed.

Summary
GovQA, LLC (GovQA) was selected to provide the City a cloud-based Software as a
Services (SaaS) solution for a Public Records Request System ensuring security,
transparency and flexibility. The solution will be used Citywide excluding the Police,
Fire and Municipal Court departments. The City's current in-house public records
request solution does not meet the business needs and security standards for the
growing number of public records requests in the City. The GovQA solution is modern
enterprise solution which will allow the public to securely submit public records
requests, and provides secure end-to-end workflows and user-based roles for staff
fulfilling the requests. The new solution reduces risk, improves efficiency, and provides
robust reporting.

Information technology companies such as GovQA provide increasingly complex
products and services and will not agree to fully indemnify the City nor accept
unlimited liability. Granting an exception would authorize the City to negotiate
indemnification and assumption of liability provisions that best protect the City while
still being aligned to IT industry standards and acceptable to GovQA.

Contract Term
This contract is for a five-year term.

Financial Impact
There is no financial impact related to this request; funding for this agreement was
approved as part of Ordinance S-48022. This request is only for authorization to grant
an exception from the indemnification and liability provisions of City Code section 42-
18.


Page 52


Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This contract was originally approved by City Council on Oct. 27, 2021, Ordinance S-
48022.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Information
Technology Services Department.




Page 53



Report

Ak-Chin Indian Community Gaming Grants (Ordinance S-48986)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply, accept, and if
awarded, enter into related agreements for up to $130,000 in new funding from the Ak-
Chin Indian Community under the 2022 funding cycle. Further request authorization for
the City Treasurer to accept and the City Controller to disburse funds as directed by
the Ak-Chin Indian Community in connection with these grants.

Summary
If awarded, these monies would be applied, as directed by the Ak-Chin Indian
Community, towards the following:

Non-Profit Applications
· Arizona Burn Foundation: $25,000 for the Milo and Moxie: Wildfire Prevention
program, which will introduce children to the importance of wildfire preparation,
while giving real-life strategies on how to help prevent wildfire disasters. The goal is
to reach and educate approximately 25,000 K-5 Arizona children, in order to reduce
the number of human-caused wildfire disasters in Arizona.
· Arizona Foundation for Women: $10,000 for the SHE Leads!, a women-focused
leadership development program, designed by women, for women, with the mission
of advancing more women into leadership positions. It is a nine-month commitment,
including program orientation and networking sessions (beginning in October), a
fundraising workshop (December) and six months of scheduled curriculum (January
to June) that develops women personally, professionally, and philanthropically.
· Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.: $35,000 for the CPLC Workforce Solutions Youth
Refugee Program, which will defray driver's education costs for youth/young adult
refugees served by CPLC Workforce Solutions, Youth Refugee Program during
2023.
· Heard Museum: $10,000 for the Youth Art Show and Sale, which will support the
Heard Museum's Youth Art Show and Sale, serving 7th through 12th grade students
and teachers across Arizona, held in conjunction with the Heard Museum Guild
Indian Fair and Market. The grant funding will directly benefit young American
Indian artists as they develop important skills, their family, and broader community
while celebrating Indigenous traditions with a diverse audience.


Page 54

· Native American Connections: $50,000 for the Homeless Youth Services program,
which will support delivery of Homeless Youth Services to address the needs of
homeless transition-age youth (ages 18-26) in the Greater Phoenix region.

The gaming compact entered into by the State of Arizona and various tribes calls for
12 percent of gaming revenue to be contributed to cities, towns, and counties for
government services that benefit the general public including public safety, mitigation
of impacts of gaming, and promotion of commerce and economic development. The Ak
-Chin Indian Community will notify the City, by resolution of the Tribal Council, if it
desires to convey to the City a portion of its annual 12 percent local revenue-sharing
contribution.

Financial Impact
There is no budgetary impact to the City and no general purpose funds are required.
Entities that receive gaming grants are responsible for the management of those
funds.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Office of Government
Relations.




Page 55



Report

Request to Enter into an Agreement for Consulting Services to Develop the
Housing Department’s Five-Year Strategic Plan (Ordinance S-48988)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with CVR Associates, Inc. to develop the Housing Department’s Five-Year Strategic
Plan in accordance with the specifications and provisions contained in the agreement
and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs. Further
request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item over
the life of the contract in an amount not to exceed $45,000.

Summary
The Housing Department will utilize this Strategic Plan to successfully analyze and
assess market conditions and the environment, optimize strategies, and guide efforts
to align with current and future opportunities, including HUD programs for affordable
housing, public housing, Section 8 vouchers and homeownership programs including
special populations inclusive of those experiencing homelessness, homeless/disabled
Veterans, human trafficking survivors and their families.

The Housing Department's previous Five-Year Strategic Plan was developed in late
2015, and has since expired. To better serve residents in the City of Phoenix, the
Housing Department is requesting this contract.

Procurement Information
RFQ FY22-086-1 for Consulting Services to Develop the Housing Department’s Five-
Year Strategic Plan was conducted in accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10.
The solicitation was sent to six qualified potential vendors to provide these services.
Four quotes were received by the Housing Department by July 28, 2022.

· CVR Associates, Inc.: $41,915
· Rounds Consulting: $48,425
· CSG Advisors, Inc.: $62,895
· Bronner Group, LLC: $64,325

In accordance with A.R. 3.10 and the requirement to select the lowest quote that is


Page 56

responsive and responsible, staff recommends that the quote from CVR Associates,
Inc. be awarded the contract.

Contract Term
The contract term will begin Oct. 1, 2022, until completion of the deliverables in the
contract.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $45,000 (including applicable taxes).

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Housing
Department.




Page 57



Report

Request to Extend Contracts for COVID-19 Related Homeless Services
(Ordinance S-48975)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend the following
contracts: 154922 (A New Leaf, Inc.- Rapid Rehousing); 154923 (A New Leaf, Inc -
Emergency Shelter); 155179 (Central Arizona Shelter Services, Inc.); 154921 (Child
Crisis Arizona); 154939 (Community Bridges, Inc - Emergency Shelter); 154940
(Community Bridges, Inc. - Street Outreach), 154968 (Homeward Bound), 154969
(Homeward Bound); 154962 (Southwest Behavioral Health Services, Inc.); and
154896 (UMOM New Day Centers) to extend the term of the contracts through Sept.
30, 2023. The aggregate value of the contracts will remain unchanged and will not
exceed $10.6 million. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. Funding is Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG)- CV2 monies
from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). There is no
impact to the General Fund.

Summary
The City of Phoenix contracted with various nonprofit organizations to provide
homeless services in the following categories: Emergency Shelter, Street Outreach,
Rapid Rehousing, Homelessness Prevention, Data Collection, and/or Administration
under the ESG expenditure guidelines. In doing so, the City of Phoenix seeks to end
an individual’s homelessness through outreach and case management services,
housing stabilization, and the eventual provision of a pathway to permanent housing
while simultaneously adhering to Center for Disease Control recommendations to
prioritize efforts for vulnerable individuals due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Funding is used to prevent, prepare for, and mitigate the effects of the COVID-19
pandemic among individuals and/or families experiencing homelessness who are at
greater risk of exposure and susceptibility, and to support additional homeless
assistance and prevention activities to alleviate the impacts of COVID-19 within the
community.

HUD has extended the expenditure deadline for ESG-CV2 funds. As such, staff is
requesting to extend the following contracts to align the expiration dates with that of
HUD. Contract amounts are as follows:


Page 58



· A New Leaf (Contract 154922) - $1,169,963;
· A New Leaf (Contract 154923) - $129,129;
· Central Arizona Shelter Services, Inc. (Contract 155179) - $1,035,254;
· Child Crisis Arizona (Contract 154921) - $1,196,459;
· Community Bridges, Inc. (Contract 154939) - $371,223;
· Community Bridges, Inc. (Contract 154940) - $2,285,979;
· Homeward Bound (Contract 154968) - $ 1,471,301;
· Homeward Bound (Contract 154969) - $827,494;
· Southwest Behavioral Health Services (Contract 154962) - $584,198; and
· UMOM New Day Centers (Contract 154896) - $1,529,000.

Total: $10.6 million

Contract Term
The term of the extension period for each contract will be from on or about Oct. 1,
2022, through Sept. 30, 2023.

Financial Impact
Funding is available from the Emergency Solutions Grant - CV2 monies from the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). There is no impact to the
General Fund.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Contracts 154922, 154923, 154921, 155179, 154939,
154940, 154968, 154969, 154962, and 154896 (Ordinance S-47793) on July 1, 2021.

The City Council approved additional funding for Community Bridges, Inc. 154940
(Ordinance S-48547) on April 20, 2022.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.




Page 59



Report

Request to Extend Contract with United States Veteran Initiative for COVID-19
Related Essential Services and Shelter Operations for At-Risk Veterans and their
Families (Ordinance S-48978)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Contract 156909
with the United States Veteran Initiative (U.S. Vets) for COVID-19 related essential
services and shelter operations for at-risk Veterans and their families through Sept. 30,
2023. The initial term of the contract was July 1, 2022, to Sept. 30, 2022. The total
value of the contract will remain unchanged and will not exceed $500,000 over the life
of the contract. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. Funding is Emergency Solutions Grant- CV (ESG-CV) monies from
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). There is no impact to
the General Fund.

Summary
U.S. Vets provides COVID-19 related essential services and shelter operations for
Veterans who are at-risk of experiencing homelessness. U.S. Vets is exclusively
focused on providing life-sustaining resources, services, and homeless prevention
support to at-risk Veterans on their path back to housing and supportive services to
help prevent a return to homelessness.

HUD has extended the expenditure deadline for ESG-CV funds. As such, staff is
requesting to extend the contract to align the expiration dates with that of HUD.

Contract Term
The extension period will begin on or about Oct. 1, 2022, and run through Sept. 30,
2023.

Financial Impact
The total contract value will remain unchanged and will not exceed $500,000. Funding
is available from ESG-CV. There is no impact to the General Fund.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Contract 156909 (Ordinance S-47175) on Dec. 16, 2020.



Page 60

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.




Page 61



Report

Request to Extend Contract with Central Arizona Shelter Services, Inc. for
COVID-19 Related Essential Public Facility Improvements for the Human
Services Campus (Ordinance S-48985)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to extend Contract 155456
with Central Arizona Shelter Services, Inc. (CASS) for COVID-19 related essential
public facility improvements for the Human Services Campus, to June 30, 2023.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. Funding is available from Community Development Block Grant Coronavirus Aid,
Relief, and Economic Security Act (CDBG-CV) funding from the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD). There is no impact to the General Fund.

Summary
On April 7, 2021, the City Council approved entering into contract with CASS to utilize
CDBG-CV funds for public facility improvements at the Human Resources Campus. Of
the $2.4 million of CDBG-CV funds allocated to CASS, $1,275,187 was for public
facility improvements to remodel interior spaces at the Single Adult Shelter. The
remodel was intended to support the creation of 130 new shelter beds, bringing the
total shelter beds to 600.

The contract is set to expire Sept. 30, 2022, and an extension through June 30, 2023,
is necessary to allow CASS additional time to complete the scope of the contract. The
value of the contract will remain unchanged and will not exceed $1,275,187.

Contract Term
The term of the contract extension period will be from Oct. 1, 2022, through June 30,
2023.

Financial Impact
The total contract value will remain unchanged and will not exceed $1,275,187.
Funding is available from Community Development Block Grant CARES Act funds.
There is no impact to the General Fund.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
On Feb. 17, 2021, the City Council approved Ordinance S-47330, a Substantial


Page 62

Amendment to the 2015-20 Consolidated Plan's 2019-20 Annual Action Plan.

On April 7, 2021, the City Council approved Ordinance S-47463 to enter into contracts
with CASS and the Human Services Campus to fund COVID-19 related essential
services, facility improvements, operations and homelessness support activities.

Location
210 S. 12th Ave.
Council District: 7

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the
Neighborhood Services Department.




Page 63



Report

Gated Alley Program Implementation (Ordinance S-48990)

Request City Council approval to implement the Gated Alley Program and authorize
the City Manager or designee to enter into all necessary agreements associated with
the installation of gates in an aggregate amount not to exceed $500,000. Further
request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.

Summary
As a result of the overwhelming demand and success of the Gated Alley Program
Pilot, funding was approved in the FY 2022-23 program budget for an ongoing Gated
Alley Program (GAP). This action included creating a new project manager position in
the Neighborhood Services Department and allocating $500,000 in general funds to
install gates for approximately 45 alley segments.

With the implementation of this new program, the gate installations will become a City
function rather than a neighborhood grant program. Interested residents will be able to
request gating their alleys by meeting eligibility requirements and completing the
process noted below. Due to limited funding, neighborhoods may choose to gate their
alleys, if eligible, at their own expense or submit a Request Form for the City to install
gates.

Eligibility Criteria (Regardless of neighborhood or City installation)
· Submit a completed Request Form;
· Contiguous fencing exists along sides of alley (minimum 5 feet);
· Limited current vehicle access and use;
· Limited conflicts with existing obstacles (irrigation lines/power poles, utilities, etc.);
· Signed petition from 50 percent plus one property owners along alley segment;
· Public Works Department must be able to provide refuse service via the street and
not alley; and
· Must be alley right of way (not private property or just public utility easement).

Additional Eligibility Requirements for City Installations
· Must be part of a Neighborhood Association; and
· A minimum of 50 percent of the adjacent properties must be single family.


Page 64


Process for City Installations
Neighborhood Services staff will work with neighborhoods to educate residents about
the program, the request form, how to determine property ownership, how to connect
with an existing neighborhood association, or create a new one, and provide language
interpreters for multilingual neighborhoods as necessary.

The general process will be as follows:
· Resident submits completed Request Form;
· Staff reviews Request Form and verifies alley requirements met;
· Staff verifies signatures;
· Staff notifies applicant (approval/does not meet);
· Staff meets with residents to confirm location;
· Staff obtains licensed contractor bids;
· Staff relocates trash collection from alley to curbside;
· Staff will complete a one-time clean-up of the alley (alley maintenance remains a
responsibility of adjacent property owners in accordance with City Code); and
· Licensed contractor obtains necessary permits and installs gates.

Equitable Access for City Installations
To ensure neighborhoods with barriers have access to the program, additional options
will be provided. For example, in high rental areas where it may be difficult to locate
property owners or obtain signatures, staff and volunteers will provide additional
support. Additionally, if the residents along the alley segment find that participating in a
neighborhood association creates a barrier, the requirement may be waived on a case-
by-case basis after all other alternatives are explored. Finally, 20 percent of the funds
available, or $100,000, will be set aside to ensure low-and moderate-income
neighborhoods have access to the program. These funds will be released in the third
quarter of the fiscal year to all available applicants if no eligible Request Forms remain
unfunded at that time.

Process for Neighborhood Installations
Community members who fund their own alley gate installation will take greater
ownership of the installation process. This includes responsibility for paying all costs
and fees totaling an estimated $11,000 for one alley segment with two gates. This
includes permits from the Planning and Development Department ($300 each gate)
and Street Transportation Department ($100). Residents will also need to purchase a
fire access Knox Rapid Entry System (lock box) for emergency access ($80).
Neighborhood installed gates must meet city design standards.



Page 65


The general process will be as follows:
· Resident submits completed Request Form;
· Staff reviews Request Form and verifies alley requirements met;
· Staff verifies signatures;
· Staff notifies applicant (approval/does not meet);
· Resident is responsible for meeting with residents and the licensed contractor along
the alley segment to confirm location;
· Resident is responsible for obtaining licensed contractor bids;
· Staff relocates trash collection from alley to curbside (verified at time of eligibility
determination);
· Resident is responsible for cleaning the alley; and
· Resident or residents’ licensed contractor is responsible for obtaining necessary
permits and installation of the gates.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the
Neighborhood Services Department.




Page 66



Report

Aircraft Rescue Mobile Prop Training Contract RFP 22-F01- Request for Award
(Ordinance S-48965)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
139 Fire, LLC to provide Aircraft Rescue Firefighter Training at the Phoenix Fire
Department Training Academy and Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport .
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The total value of the contract will not exceed $170,550.

Summary
This contract will provide training and certification to Phoenix Fire Department (PFD)
firefighters for service at Aviation Department facilities, including Phoenix Sky Harbor
International Airport. The airport has Aircraft Rescue Firefighting (ARFF) capabilities
with an extensive apparatus and personnel to provide fire and medical response to
an aircraft emergency. In order to maintain these capabilities, PFD firefighters
stationed at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport must train in accordance with
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) standards. These standards mandate that
PFD firefighters train with live burn exercises annually. For the first two years and
final two years of the five-year agreement, a mobile prop may be utilized for the
training. During the third year, a more extensive training requires use of a staged,
full-scale, simultaneously burning aircraft. This contract serves only for the mobile
prop exercises.

Procurement Information
A Request for Proposal (RFP) procurement was processed in accordance with City of
Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10. One proposal was received by the Fire
Department on July 11, 2022. The offer submitted by 139 Fire, LLC was evaluated and
deemed to be fair and reasonable based on the evaluation criteria presented in the
RFP.

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about Sept. 15, 2022 for a five-year term with no options
to extend.




Page 67

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $170,550.

Funding is available in the Aviation and Fire departments' operating budgets.

Location
Phoenix Fire Department Training Academy located in Council District 7 and Phoenix
Sky Harbor International Airport located in Council District 8.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays, Deputy City Manager
Mario Paniagua, and the Fire and Aviation departments.




Page 68



Report

FY 2022 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Ordinance S-48984)

Request retroactive authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to allow the
Police Department to apply for, accept and enter into an agreement with the Bureau of
Justice Assistance and Intergovernmental Agreements with Maricopa County, Town of
Gilbert and the cities of Avondale, Buckeye, Chandler, Glendale, Goodyear, Mesa,
Peoria, Scottsdale, Tempe, and Surprise, for the 2022 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice
Assistance Grant (JAG) in an amount not to exceed $1,609,591. Further request
authorization for the City Treasurer to accept, and for the City Controller to disburse, all
funds related to this item.

Summary
The City has received funding through this grant program for the past several years.
The Police Department was informed of the availability of these funds on June 22,
2022. The Police Department will manage this grant by administering the funding to
the eligible local agencies, completing programmatic and financial reporting, and
initiating the intergovernmental agreements associated with the grant awards.

The 2022 JAG grant application was submitted by the Police Department on behalf of
the City of Phoenix and eligible partnering agencies. The proposed allocation of the
award includes the following:
· City of Phoenix: $1,093,104
· Maricopa County: $38,766
· Town of Gilbert: $19,433
· City of Avondale: $21,021
· City of Buckeye: $9,356
· City of Chandler: $43,233
· City of Glendale: $78,673
· City of Goodyear: $14,245
· City of Mesa: $143,150
· City of Peoria: $31,420
· City of Scottsdale: $32,437
· City of Tempe: $72,022



Page 69

· City of Surprise: $12,731
· Total Award: $1,609,591

The proposed budgetary allocations for the City of Phoenix includes $207,142 for the
Parks and Recreation Department for Project BRAVE (Bringing Reality About Violence
Education). Project BRAVE is a violence prevention and education program that was
created with the goal of decreasing violence in our community through awareness and
leadership training activities. The project provides comprehensive workshops held at
various sites, non-profit agencies, and after school programs.

The Police Department proposes to use the remaining $828,572 to assist the
department in supplying patrol squads with newly designed ballistic shields for use
during critical incidents involving firearms. The shields are designed to be more agile,
tactically sound, and lighter in weight. The shields can be used in a variety of ways and
for a longer period of time. Each patrol squad supervisor will be assigned a ballistic
shield resulting in reduced response times in delivering essential tools when needed.

The grant application was due Aug. 11, 2022. If authorization is denied, the grant
application will be rescinded.

Contract Term
The contract term is Oct. 1, 2021 through Sept. 30, 2025.

Financial Impact
No matching funds are required.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Parks and
Recreation and Police departments.




Page 70



Report

Donation from Phoenix Police Foundation of Equipment for Canine Unit
(Ordinance S-48987)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to accept a donation of
equipment for the Phoenix Police Department Canine Unit from the Phoenix Police
Foundation for up to $60,600. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to
accept all funds, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.

Summary
The Phoenix Police Department’s Canine Unit plays a critical role in policing, including
locating a suspect or being used as a less lethal and preservation of life tool for the
officers and suspects. The Phoenix Police Department is the largest law enforcement
agency in Arizona and has the most extensive canine program with 17 dogs and
handlers. Regardless of the number of safety precautions taken, canine work in
policing is inherently dangerous. This equipment will assist with training and provide as
many tools as possible to increase canine, handler, and community safety.

This donation consists of five separate types of equipment:

1. Canine Scent Wall: This item is designed to be used as a training tool to keep
police dogs sharp in their narcotic recognition skills and reinforce their odor
detection abilities. The objective is to keep the dogs at peak performance by
utilizing the scent wall and boxes to identify narcotic, nitrate, and human remains
detection. The value of this item is $941.09.
2. Canine Bite Suits: The donation of four bite suits will be used as a tool when
training canines to apprehend suspects and follow handler commands. The
objective is to keep the dogs at peak performance by utilizing the most realistic
training environment possible. The value of the four suits is $6,340.
3. Throwbot 2 Robots: This donation is for two robots. The Throwbot 2 robot is a
throwable micro-robot platform that enables operators to obtain instantaneous video
and audio reconnaissance within indoor or outdoor environments. The robots are
designed to withstand repeated drops of up to 30 feet onto concrete. This allows
operators to throw the robot into hazardous situations in order to quickly make
informed decisions. The value of the two robots is $32,840.
4. CORE Under-Door Camera: The donation of one under-door camera allows the


Page 71

user to see under doors with an approximate quarter-inch gap between the door
and floor. The two camera model provides the user with a forward and upward look
into the room being inspected. The camera is also equipped with high intensity
infrared illumination for non-illuminated rooms/areas. The ability to illuminate a room
prior to sending an officer or canine will provide immediate intelligence on the layout
of the room and reduce the chances of a lethal encounter. The value of the under-
door camera is $9,829.36.
5. FLIR Monocular Systems: The donation of two Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR)
Monocular systems will assist police K-9 teams search within various environments,
such as buildings, both residential and commercial, yards, neighborhoods, and
large open areas like parks and desert areas, by identifying "hot spots" at a
distance. This early warning system would improve the ability to create an
apprehension plan involving the least amount of force and reduces the possibility of
a lethal encounter. The value of two FLIR systems is $10,640.79.

The Phoenix Police Foundation is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. The Foundation
is committed to addressing unmet capital needs of the Phoenix Police Department,
providing financial assistance in crisis situations, and recognizing those who protect
our community.

Financial Impact
Cost to the City will include any standard operation and maintenance expenses. Funds
are available in the Police Department's budget.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Police Department.




Page 72



Report

Hydrant Fueling System Modification (Ordinance S-48981)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a sale and
purchase agreement and to amend Hydrant Fueling Agreement Lease No. 57871-ARL
with the Arizona Fueling Facilities Corporation (AFFC) for the modification of the fuel
storage and hydrant fuel line system at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport.

Summary
AFFC is a consortium of airlines that operates under a ground lease for its piping
system, which allows the airlines to fuel their aircraft at the gates from hydrants tied to
the system. The hydrant fueling system was extended to provide fueling service to
eight new gates as part of the Terminal 4, S1 Concourse construction project. To
accommodate the accelerated schedule for this project, the Aviation Department
included design and construction of the hydrant fuel line into its building contract.
Following construction, AFFC will reimburse the City for the new section of the
pipeline.

Financial Impact
The total cost for design and construction is approximately $2.8 million. Following
receipt of final payment by AFFC, the Aviation Department will transfer pipeline
ownership to AFFC by a bill of sale.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Business and Development Subcommittee recommended approval of this item on
Aug. 4, 2022 by a vote of 3-0.
The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board recommended approval of this item on Aug. 18,
2022 by a vote of 8-0.

Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, 2485 E. Buckeye Road.
Council District: 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Aviation
Department.


Page 73



Report

Miscellaneous Building Repairs Agreement (Ordinance S-48966)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate
agreements with: Skyline Builders & Restoration, Inc.; BWC Enterprise, Inc. dba
Woodruff Construction; and Bio Janitorial Service, Inc., for miscellaneous building
repairs to be used on an as-needed basis in City-owned facilities. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The aggregate
value of the agreements will not exceed $1.35 million.

Summary
The Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining City-owned facilities.
These services will be used for commercial maintenance, incidental building repairs,
and tenant improvement services for over 600 City-owned facilities. The services will
be used on an as-needed basis to provide Public Works with additional support with
increased building repairs and tenant improvements for various customer departments.
In addition to minor repair projects, these agreements will provide regular preventative
maintenance services that are necessary to enhance aesthetics and extend the useful
life of City-owned structures and properties.

Procurement Information
Invitation for Bid 23-FMD-013 was conducted in accordance with Administrative
Regulation 3.10. Three offers were received by the Public Works Department
Procurement Services Division on April 20, 2022. The offers were evaluated based on
price, responsiveness to all specifications, terms and conditions, and the responsibility
to provide the required services. The offers submitted by Skyline Builders &
Restoration, Inc.; BWC Enterprise, Inc. dba Woodruff Construction; and Bio Janitorial
Service, Inc. were deemed fair and reasonable.

Skyline Builders & Restoration, Inc.: $4,610 bid total
BWC Enterprise, Inc. dba Woodruff Construction: $7,320 bid total
Bio Janitorial Service, Inc.: $8,377.50 bid total

Contract Term
The one-year term of the contracts will begin on or about Oct. 1, 2022. The contracts
will include two one-year options to extend the term, for a total contract term of up to


Page 74

three years if all options are exercised.

Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the agreements, including all option years, is $1.35 million,
including all applicable taxes, with an estimated annual expenditure of $450,000.

Funding is available in the Public Works Department's budget.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Public Works
Department.




Page 75



Report

Electrical Services Agreement Invitation Request for Award for Bid 23-FMD-014
(Ordinance S-48967)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate
agreements with: Hawkeye Electric, Inc.; JFK Electrical Contracting Enterprises, Inc.;
Russell E. Kurz doing business as Performance Electric; and Sabino Electric, Inc., to
provide electrical services in City-owned facilities. Further request to authorize the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The aggregate value of the
agreements will not exceed $6,609,600.

Summary
The Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining and repairing electrical
components in numerous City-owned facilities. These electrical services provide the
installation of electrical equipment in buildings, repair and replacement of cables and
wires, installation and repair of service entrance sections, and other necessary
electrical services on an as-needed basis. These electrical services are necessary to
help ensure electrical systems are properly maintained and all code requirements are
met for the safety of employees, residents, and the public. This agreement provides
back-up services to augment and support the City's Electricians trained and assigned
to these functions. This agreement is also used by the Phoenix Convention Center and
Water Services departments.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10 Invitation for Bid 23-FMD-014, four
offers were received by the Public Works Department Procurement Services Division
on May 11, 2022. The offers were evaluated based on price, responsiveness to all
specifications, terms and conditions, and responsibility to provide the required
services. The offers submitted by Hawkeye Electric, Inc.; JFK Electrical Contracting
Enterprises, Inc.; Russell E. Kurz doing business as Performance Electric; and Sabino
Electric, Inc. were deemed fair and reasonable.

Group A - Journeyman
Hawkeye Electric, Inc.: $389,960 bid total; and
Sabino Electric, Inc.: $544,000 bid total



Page 76

Group B - Skilled Electrician
Hawkeye Electric, Inc.: 389,960 bid total;
JFK Electrical Contracting Enterprises, Inc.: $431,000 bid total;
Russell E. Kurz doing business as Performance Electric: $271,550 bid total; and
Sabino Electric, Inc.: $469,000 bid total

Group C - Apprentice/Helper
Hawkeye Electric, Inc.: $90,250 bid total; and
Sabino Electric, Inc.: $158,500 bid total

Contract Term
The agreements will begin on or about Oct. 1, 2022 for a one-year term, with two one-
year options to extend.

Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the agreements, including all option years, is $6,609,600,
including all applicable taxes, with an estimated annual expenditure of $2,203,200.

Funding is available in the Phoenix Convention Center, Water Services, and Public
Works departments' budgets.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Inger Erickson and Karen Peters, and
the Phoenix Convention Center, Water Services, and Public Works departments.




Page 77



Report

Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Maintenance, Repair, and
Replacement Services Agreement (Ordinance S-48971)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate
agreements with: Artic Air Heating & Cooling, Inc.; Crawford Mechanical Services,
LLC; HACI Service, LLC; Chiller Services, Inc.; United Technologies, LLC doing
business as UNI-TECH; and A Quality HVAC Services, LLC to provide heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) maintenance and repair services in City-
owned facilities. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The aggregate value of the agreements will not
exceed$10,086,000.

Summary
The Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining and repairing the HVAC
systems and equipment in numerous City-owned facilities. The agreements provide
back-up services to augment and support the City's HVAC staff trained and assigned
to responding to urgent and routine service requests. The agreements provide regular
maintenance, necessary repairs, and the replacement of system components to
ensure facility air conditioning and heating systems are operating properly, effectively,
and efficiently. These services are necessary for the health and safety of employees,
residents, and the public in City-owned facilities. These agreements will also provide
services for facilities maintained by the Aviation Department and Phoenix Convention
Center.

Procurement Information
Invitation for Bid 23-FMD-016 was conducted in accordance with Administrative
Regulation 3.10. Nine offers were received by the Public Works Department
Procurement Services Division on May 25, 2022. The offers were evaluated based on
price, responsiveness to all specifications, terms and conditions, and responsibility to
provide the required services. The offers submitted by Artic Air Heating & Cooling, Inc.;
Crawford Mechanical Services, LLC; HACI Service, LLC doing business as UNI-
TECH; Chiller Services, Inc.; United Technologies, LLC; and A Quality HVAC Services,
LLC were deemed fair and reasonable.

See Attachment A for the bid summary of offers submitted for Groups 1-7.


Page 78


Contract Term
The agreements will begin on or about Oct. 1, 2022, for a one-year term with two one-
year options to extend.

Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the agreements, including all option years, will not exceed
$10,086,000, including all applicable taxes, with an estimated annual expenditure of
$3,362,000.

Funding is available in the Aviation, Phoenix Convention Center, and Public Works
Departments' budgets.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Mario Paniagua, Inger Erickson, and Karen Peters, and the
Aviation, Phoenix Convention Center, and Public Works departments.




Page 79
Attachment A - Bid Summary

IFB 23-FMD-016 HVAC Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement Services
Award Recommendation

Group III - Group VII -
Group IV - Group V - Group VI -
Group I - Group II - Duct Design, Duct Design, Installation,
Offeror Low Temperature Commercial Residential
Commercial Residential Installation, and and Fabrication
Coolers/Freezers (Aviation Only) (Aviation Only)
Fabrication (Aviation Only)
A Quality HVAC Services, LLC $ 14,150.00 $ 14,150.00 ; $ 16,350.00 $ 18,450.00 $ 14,150.00 $ 14,150.00 $ 16,350.00
Artic Air Heating & Cooling, Inc. $ 9,950.00 ; $ 9,950.00 ; $ 8,850.00 ; $ 9,950.00 ; No Bid No Bid No Bid
Chiller Services, Inc. $ 12,800.00 ; $ 11,600.00 ; $ 11,500.00 $ 12,100.00 ; $ 12,700.00 $ 12,100.00 $ 11,500.00
Comfort Systems USA Southwest $ 14,490.00 $ 14,490.00 $ 12,075.00 $ 14,490.00 $ 14,490.00 $ 14,490.00 $ 12,075.00
Crawford Mechanical Services, LLC $ 10,580.00 ; No Bid $ 8,625.00 ; $ 12,075.00 ; $ 10,580.00 ; No Bid $ 8,625.00 ;
HACI Service, LLC $ 10,925.00 ; $ 10,925.00 ; $ 6,900.00 ; $ 12,650.00 $ 11,500.00 $ 10,925.00 ; $ 6,900.00 ;
Tolin Mechanical Systems $ 13,800.00 No Bid No Bid $ 13,800.00 $ 13,800.00 No Bid No Bid
Trane US, Inc. $ 18,214.90 $ 14,755.00 $ 16,748.60 $ 18,214.90 $ 18,214.90 $ 16,748.60 $ 16,748.60
United Technologies, LLC $ 10,150.00 ; $ 10,150.00 ; $ 10,150.00 ; $ 10,150.00 ; $ 11,300.00 ; $ 10,150.00 ; $ 10,150.00


Page 80



Report

Allison Transmissions Repair, Rebuild and Replacement for Fleet Vehicles
Contract IFB 23-FSD-017 - Request for Award (Ordinance S-48972)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contract with
RWC International, LTD to provide Allison transmission repair, rebuild, and
replacement for fleet vehicles. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The value of the contract will not exceed
$607,260.

Summary
The Public Works Department is responsible for the maintenance and repair of over
7,500 vehicles and equipment. This contract will be used to supplement the repair,
rebuild, and replacement of Allison transmissions. The City's fleet currently has over
800 units with various types of Allison transmissions that often have complex repairs
that require expedited repairs to allow the fleet to be up and running for City services.
Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, the Public Works Department
conducted Invitation for Bid (IFB) 23-FSD-017. The Public Works Department reached
out to 60 vendors, and there was one offer received. The bid was evaluated for
responsibility and responsiveness under the specifications, with the vendor below
recommended for award based on hourly labor rate:

RWC International, LTD: $135.00/hr

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about Nov. 1, 2022, for a three-year term, with two one-
year options to extend.

Financial Impact
This contract will have an estimated annual expenditure of $121,452 with an aggregate
value of $607,260 over the life of the contract.

Funding is available in the Public Works Department's budget.




Page 81


Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Public Works
Department.




Page 82



Report

Plan and Community Advisory Committee

Request City Council approval of the Vision Zero Road Safety Action Plan and
formation of the Vision Zero Community Advisory Committee. Further request City
Council approval of the allocation of $10 million annually for the implementation of the
Plan.

Summary
The Street Transportation Department (Streets) is requesting Council approval of the
Road Safety Action Plan - Moving to Vision Zero (Attachment A). The Road Safety
Action Plan (RSAP) is a comprehensive road safety plan applying a data-driven,
decision-making process to identify and prioritize transportation safety improvements
with a “Five E's” approach (Evaluation, Education, Engineering, Enforcement, and
Equity). Phoenix's efforts on the RSAP align with the framework of a Vision Zero Action
Plan, with its emphasis on meaningful community engagement, equity, and data-
driven, systems-based strategies to improve road safety for all Phoenicians. The
RSAP vision is clear: to ultimately reduce the number of traffic fatalities and serious
injuries to zero by 2050.

Streets is also requesting Council approval to form the Vision Zero Community
Advisory Committee, which will provide feedback and recommendations regarding
implementation of the RSAP. Additionally, Streets is requesting Council approval to
allocate $10 million per year in funding for implementation of the RSAP, with $3 million
allocated from the City’s general fund, $2 million from Transportation 2050 (T2050)
funds, and $5 million from the Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF).

Background
Traffic fatalities within the City of Phoenix have been increasing over many years. The
unofficial data indicates that 231 people died on Phoenix streets in 2021, which is an
increase of 25 percent from 2020. In reviewing the fatal crash information over the last
two decades, 2021 is the year with the highest number of fatalities on Phoenix roads.
According to unofficial information from the Vehicular Crimes Unit within the Phoenix
Police Department, as of July 31, 2022, there have been 137 fatalities this year. If this
trend continues for the remainder of the year, the number of fatalities in 2022 will


Page 83

surpass those in 2021.

On March 2, 2021, City Council approved the development of a RSAP to reduce
injuries and fatalities on Phoenix roadways, and on Feb. 16, 2022, City Council
approved a resolution for Phoenix to adopt the Vision Zero strategy and incorporate
Vision Zero goals into the RSAP.

RSAP Development
The RSAP is the culmination of a comprehensive planning effort that includes a
detailed five-year crash analysis, results from a two-phase public engagement
process, and 42 actionable strategies that are prioritized for implementation. The
planning effort included a two-tiered internal City of Phoenix working group endeavor
that established guidance and partnerships at the beginning of the planning effort, and
then worked to develop the RSAP objectives and strategies together. This working
group included both technical staff and executive leadership to ensure that the
strategies, implementation plan, and performance measurements are both realistic and
highly beneficial to reduce the amount of people killed or seriously injured on Phoenix
streets. Supporting this cross-departmental effort, the consultant project team built a
user-friendly crash analysis tool for City staff to access and analyze crashes in
development of capital projects and implementation of RSAP strategies.

The RSAP established six pillars to provide guidance in the planning process and
development of the plan: use data to drive decisions, establish a culture of safety,
establish performance measures for evaluation, engage the public through an inclusive
engagement process, develop and implement strategies and counter measures, and
embrace the five E’s of traffic safety. The RSAP identifies an implementation plan for
foundational process improvements and establishes continuous road safety
evaluation, education, and enforcement countermeasures. The RSAP also identifies a
series of 31 performance measures linked to the implementation of strategies to meet
the goal of zero traffic deaths by 2050. Benchmarks include a 25 percent reduction in
traffic deaths by 2027 and a 65 percent reduction by 2035. To ensure accountability of
meeting the RSAP goals, an annual Vision Zero status report including updated crash
statistics and status of performance measure targets is recommended.

Community Engagement
The RSAP implemented a comprehensive two-phase public involvement process that
included an interactive online tool that allowed users to take a survey, prioritize goals,
and provide comments specific to locations throughout the City (phase I) and an online
survey that presented the RSAP strategies for input (phase II). The project team also
hosted 21 community touch points throughout the City at in-person events,
online/virtual meetings, Vision Zero pledge tables at 10 Phoenix libraries, backpack


Page 84

giveaways, and neighborhood meetings. This effort resulted in over 5,000 comments
related to residents’ opinions and perspectives about roadway safety.

Vision Zero Task Force
The Vision Zero Network (VZN) is a collaborative, nonprofit campaign helping
communities set and reach the goal of eliminating serious injuries and fatalities on
roadways. The VZN emphasizes the importance of creating a task force and describes
it as being one of the first crucial steps in building and implementing a city's Vision
Zero action plan. Although the structures of Vision Zero task forces vary across the
United States, each has the core function of helping create or advise on the
implementation of the action plan and provide progress updates. After assessing the
structure of other VZN cities' task forces and common practices, Streets recommends
a three-tiered Vision Zero task force framework for the City of Phoenix. This
recommendation aligns well with how other Vision Zero cities are operating yet
remains unique to Phoenix and will help create a strong foundation for the action plan
to grow. The three tiers are identified and described below.

RSAP Implementation Team
The RSAP Implementation Team would meet monthly and work with the Executive
Task Force to provide quarterly Vision Zero updates to the Community Advisory
Committee related to the status of the City's Vision Zero goal and incorporate
recommendations from the Executive Task Force and Community Advisory Committee
into the RSAP.

Executive Task Force
The Executive Task Force would guide the RSAP Implementation Team through the
implementation of the RSAP, including any updates to the RSAP. The Executive Task
Force would meet once each quarter and would be comprised of a Deputy City
Manager and multiple sponsors from relevant City departments. The final role of the
Executive Task Force is to ensure department liaisons remain engaged and are
assisting with RSAP Implementation Team objectives.

Vision Zero Community Advisory Committee
The Vision Zero Community Advisory Committee would hear quarterly updates from
the RSAP Implementation Team, provide feedback and recommendations regarding
the RSAP to both the RSAP Implementation Team and Executive Task Force, request
future agenda items, and coordinate with related City Council offices. The Vision Zero
Community Advisory Committee would meet each quarter and will include 11 members
of the public. Each of the eight City Council members will appoint one community
member representative, and the Mayor will appoint the other three members from key
stakeholder groups as well as the initial committee chair. The formation of this


Page 85

committee requires Council approval.

Financial Impact
$10 million per year is proposed for implementation of the RSAP, with $3 million
allocated from the City’s General Fund (including an additional $1.2 million from the
General Fund), $2 million from T2050 funds, and $5 million from HURF. The City
Council approved a total of $1.8 million in General Fund per year for the Roadway
Safety Action Plan through the 2022-23 budget adoption process; this item would
result in mid-year General Fund addition of $1.2 million, bringing the annual General
Fund total to $3 million.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Citizens Transportation Commission:
· Recommended City Council approval of the development of the RSAP on Jan. 28,
2021, by a vote of 15-0;
· Received an update on the RSAP on Oct. 28, 2021; and
· Received an update on the RSAP and recommended Council approval to allocate
up to $2 million per year of T2050 funds for the implementation of the RSAP on
Aug. 25, 2022, by a vote of 9-1.

The Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee:
· Recommended City Council approval for the development of the RSAP on Feb. 3,
2021, by a vote of 4-0; and
· Received updates on the RSAP on Oct. 20, 2021, and June 15, 2022.

The City Council:
· Approved development of the RSAP, completion of near-term projects, and
additional staffing resources on March 2, 2021;
· Received an update on the development of the RSAP and approved moving
forward with the Vision Zero strategy and incorporation of Vision Zero goals into the
RSAP on Jan. 25, 2022, by a vote of 7-2; and
· Approved the Vision Zero Strategy Resolution (Resolution 21995) to incorporate
Vision Zero goals into the RSAP on Feb. 16, 2022, by a vote of 7-2.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Street
Transportation Department.




Page 86
ATTACHMENT A




CITY OF PHOENIX




STRATEGIES & ACTIONS TO REDUCE TRAFFIC
DEATHS & SERIOUS INJURIES TO ZERO

R2022
E MBE
SEPT




Page 87
Acknowledgments
The Road Safety Action Plan (RSAP) is more than just a transportation plan — it’s a critical step to move to zero
deaths and serious injuries by 2050 on Phoenix Streets. The City of Phoenix would like to dedicate this plan to
the people who have lost their lives or have been seriously injured through traffic crashes.

CITY COUNCIL PARTNERS & COLLABORATORS
Mayor: Kate Gallego Karla Petty, FHWA
District 1: Councilmember Ann O’Brien Jeff King, FHWA
District 2: Councilmember Jim Waring Kerry Wilcoxon, AZ Dept. of Transportation
District 3: Councilmember Debra Stark Margaret Herrera, Maricopa Assn. of Governments
District 4: Vice Mayor Laura Pastor Richard Nassi, Pima Assn. of Governments
District 5: Councilmember Betty Guardado
CITY OF PHOENIX DEPARTMENTS
District 6: Councilmember Sal DiCiccio
City Manager’s Office
District 7: Councilmember Yassamin Ansari
Community & Economic Development Dept.
District 8: Councilmember Carlos Garcia
Fire Dept.
Housing Dept.
STREET TRANSPORTATION PROJECT TEAM
Human Services Dept.
Kini Knudson, Director
Information Technology Services Dept.
Briiana Velez, Assistant Director
Neighborhood Services Dept.
Bruce Littleton
Parks and Recreation Dept.
Carl Langford
Planning & Development Dept.
Reed Henry
Police Dept.
Mailen Pankiewicz
Public Transit Dept.
Leticia Vargas
Street Transportation Dept.
Yvette Roeder
Gregg Bach CONSULTANTS TEAM
Vivian Padilla Y2K Engineering
Ashley Patton WSP
Tricia Quiroz Lee Engineering
Cooper Payne Engineering Mapping Solutions


PUBLIC PARTICIPANTS
Thank you to thousands of City of Phoenix neighborhood and business association, Block Watch and faith-based groups, schools and
community leaders and various community organizations who took the time to provide us with your opinions, thoughts, concerns, and
input. Your voice matters. It was directly used in creating the RSAP strategies and subsequent implementation plan.




Page 88
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK




ii
Page 89
A Message From Mayor Kate Gallego

When it comes to population growth, economic development and innovation,
the city of Phoenix has always ranked at the top. Unfortunately, Phoenix has
also ranked in the top three cities in our nation for roadway fatalities, behind
only Houston and Los Angeles.

Data from 2021 show fatalities on our city roadways are consistently on the
rise. In comparing 2021 data with the previous year’s, fatalities related to motor
vehicle crashes, as well as fatalities involving pedestrians and cyclists, saw a
dramatic increase of 25 percent. The numbers are alarming and very tragic.

It was clear that immediate steps needed to be taken to protect anyone and
everyone using our roadways.

Since becoming Mayor of the 5th largest city in the U.S. in 2019, I have supported the installation of 34 HAWKs (High-intensity Activated
crossWalKs) by our Street Transportation Department, bringing the total number to 77 HAWKs installed across the city. We also have
added 120 miles of bike lanes throughout our roadways to encourage the use of active transportation as an alternative and more
environmentally friendly mode to travel. Most importantly, Phoenix was at the forefront of cities to establish the Office of Pedestrian
Safety as a resource hub that educates residents on a variety of traffic safety issues through community engagement, and promotes
increased driver, pedestrian, and bicyclist awareness, especially around school zones and residential neighborhoods.

As Phoenix continues to be one of the fastest growing cities in population and economy in the nation, my commitment to providing
safe roadways for everyone is stronger than ever. In March 2021, my colleagues in the City Council and I supported the development
of the Road Safety Action Plan (RSAP), a roadmap that includes attainable goals and strategies that fit the unique characteristics
of Phoenix’s roadways and roadway users. This is the roadmap Phoenix needs to systematically provide guidance and direction on
continuously lowering traffic-related fatalities. Spearheaded by the Phoenix Street Transportation Department, this RSAP is the result
of the great collaboration among city departments, state agencies, engineering consultants, and more importantly, the many Phoenix
residents and stakeholders who provided their input every step of the way.

In January 2022, members of the City Council and I took it a step further by taking action for Phoenix to be a part of the Vision Zero
Network. Incorporating the Vision Zero strategy to the RSAP allows for a more multi-disciplinary approach to achieve zero traffic
fatalities and injuries, and encourages policy makers, urban planners, health professionals and engineers to work together towards
that goal.

On February 2022, the City Council and I made it official. We adopted a resolution to integrate Vision Zero strategies and principles
into the RSAP.

Now, the Vision Zero Road Safety Action Plan is a more holistic approach to achieving zero traffic-related fatalities, using the “Five
Es of Traffic Safety”—Evaluation, Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Equity—as its foundation. Working with our partners,
my commitment is to continue to invest in safer roadway designs and redesigns, advanced traffic technologies, and engagement
programming. That is what our residents want, and that is what they deserve.

This Plan is the culmination of over two years of collaborative dedication and passion for roadway safety from our outstanding Street
Transportation engineers and other city staff, policy makers, municipality and state agency partners, public safety personnel, safety
technology experts across the nation, and of course, Phoenix residents, who deserve the best quality of life our city has to offer.




iii
Page 90
A Message From Councilwoman Debra Stark,
Transportation, Infrastructure & Planning Chair

Road safety is everyone’s business.

A traffic-related fatality or serious-injury crash not only impacts the family
of the victim, but also affects the lives and well-being of 911 operators, first
responders, medical personnel, and indirectly, the lives of residents and
bystanders within the crash area. While most crashes are preventable, there
are several factors that may have also contributed to the tragedy.

From 2015 to 2019, about 46% of all traffic-related crashes in Phoenix streets
have caused the deaths or severe injuries of pedestrians, motorcyclists or
bicyclists (Data Source: ADOT ALISS), citing red-light running, speeding,
distracted driving, poor visibility and crossing mid-block as just some of the
reasons. As we heard more and more of these tragic stories in the news each day, the need to keep our streets safer for all users
became dire. We needed a well-thought-out plan.

Phoenix’s Vision Zero Road Safety Action Plan (RSAP) is the outcome of concerted efforts from city department staff, experts in traffic
design and technology, and multiple external partners, who listened, discussed, and considered our community members’ needs,
wants, and feedback to compile a methodical list of attainable goals and strategies for safer streets. The Plan not only calls for safer
and more reliable infrastructure and updated technology; it also incorporates effective enforcement, data analysis for prioritization,
and ongoing education of the public to deliver a well-rounded approach to achieving road safety. As Phoenix’s landscape and
demographics continue to change, the Vision Zero RSAP is designed to adapt and accommodate the ebb and flow of our city.

Now, the ball is in our court to create a culture of road safety by having a mindset that fatal and serious injury crashes on our streets
are preventable if we remain mindful of our actions and our decisions when sharing the road. After all, zero fatalities and severe
injuries on our roads can only be achieved when everyone works together as a system.

As the Chairperson of the Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning (TIP) Subcommittee, I would like to thank everyone who worked
on the development of the Plan, especially to our Street Transportation Department that led the efforts. The Vision Zero RSAP reaffirms
the Mayor’s, my fellow City Councilmembers’ and my commitment to preventing traffic-related deaths and reducing road injuries in
Phoenix so that we can all confidently drive a vehicle, ride a bike, cross the street, and take public transit knowing that we will all get
home safe.




iv
Page 91
A Message From Kini L.E Knudson, PE


Developing and implementing a comprehensive Road Safety Action Plan (RSAP)
is the top priority for the City of Phoenix Street Transportation Department.

Traffic fatalities in Phoenix have increased over several years. In 2021, the city
saw 231 roadway fatalities – its highest ever. That was a 25 percent increase
from 185 fatalities in 2020. These numbers and that trend are alarming and is
the reason that a consistent strategy is needed to ensure appropriate resources
are focused on making city roadways safer for all users – drivers, bikers and
pedestrians.

I’m grateful for the support and leadership of Mayor Kate Gallego and the
Phoenix City Council, who in March 2021 unanimously approved funding for city staff to develop this plan. In February 2022, City
Council approved a resolution for that plan to incorporate the goals of Vision Zero – a core philosophy that traffic-related deaths and
serious injuries are preventable.

In addition to embracing the Vision Zero approach, the RSAP also provides a roadmap for how to coordinate the implementation of the
five E’s of transportation safety – Evaluation, Engineering, Enforcement, Education and Equity. All five carry equal weight, and each are
vital to helping Phoenix achieve its roadway safety goals.

Creation of this plan also would not have been possible without the input received from thousands of Valley residents, who took
time to communicate with us through interactive online surveys, at public meetings and special events, and through social media
and e-mail. Public engagement was crucial, and the feedback received helped city staff create and revise a plan that matches the
priorities of the community.

Improving roadway safety is a community effort and the Street Transportation Department has dedicated itself to the task of reversing
recent trends and improving roadway safety for all.




v
Page 92
Table of Contents



INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION 1 THE FACTS 11 THE 5 E’S 17


CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 3
An Urgent Need 3 Quick Facts 12 Evaluation 19
The Planning Process 5 Crash Factors 13 Engineering 20
Vision Zero Commitment 7 High Injury Network 15 Enforcement 21
The Safe Systems Approach 9 Education 22
Vision & Goals 10 Equity 23




ENGAGING PHOENICIANS 25 INTRODUCTION
TAKING ACTION 31 AINTRODUCTION
PATH FORWARD 49


CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 6
What Phoenix is Saying 27 How to Read This Section 33 Strategy Prioritization 50
Using Phoenician Input 29 General Strategies 35 Foundational Change 51
Behavior Related 37 Systemic Implementation 57
Pedestrians & Bicyclists 39 Addressing the HIN 63
Intersections 41 Resources 71
Segments 43 Reporting & Tracking 72
Toolboxes 45




III
vi
Page 93
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1




Page 94
On Average, In the City of Phoenix...
*




EVERY DAY,
There are 83 automobile crashes.




EVERY OTHER DAY,
There is at least one fatal car crash.




IN A SINGLE YEAR,
There are 190 people killed,
enough to fill a Boeing 737.




If one fully loaded Boeing 737 aircraft were to crash with no surviving
passengers each year, imagine for a moment what the response would be.


Lives lost through motor vehicle
crashes deserve the same attention.

*2015-2019
Page 95
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022




AN URGENT NEED
With an average of over 30,000 crashes annually and an average of 2 crashes resulting in serious
injury every single day, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has consistently
ranked Phoenix in the top 3 cities in the nation for overall traffic fatalities. In 2021, as the COVID
pandemic continued, the amount of people killed on Arizona’s transportation system reached a new
peak of 1,120 (preliminary number), the highest number of traffic fatalities since 2007 with 231 of those
fatalities (21%) within the City of Phoenix - the most amount of lives lost in a single year since 2000.
Any fatalities on our streets are unacceptable, and the City of Phoenix has pledged to take action.



TOTAL FATALITIES ANNUAL AVERAGE (2017-2019)
Los Angeles, CA

Houston, TX

PHOENIX, AZ
New York,NY

Dallas,TX

San Antonio, TX

Jacksonville, MI

Chicago, IL

Memphis, TN

Detroit, MI

50 100 150 200 250 300




This City of Phoenix, Road Safety Action Plan – Moving To Vision Zero was created to fundamentally
shift the way the City of Phoenix addresses and responds to crashes, develop systemic strategies
to improve safety, and provide a road-map for the City to hone a “safety-first,” proactive stance in
reducing and ultimately preventing road fatalities. The purpose of this plan is simple: ultimately reduce
the number of traffic fatalities and serious injuries to zero by 2050.



“We need a change in mentality. We’ve become accustomed to accepting the unacceptable”
-Pete Buttigieg, US Secretary of Transportation



Page 96
Introduction




Photo Credit: Jim Walsh The tragedy of lost life on Phoenician streets doesn’t
just affect the people involved with a crash. For every
person directly involved, there are parents, siblings,
children, friends, coworkers, neighbors, first responders,
bystanders, and others that often bear the brunt of the
emotional pain, and consequences of fatal crashes.

In addition to the emotional pain of losing life, having a
life significantly altered for the future, or even short term consequences of a non fatal impact, the
financial impact is significant as well. Using the USDOT FHWA Safety Program Crash Costs for
Highway Safety Analysis, adjusted for Arizona, it is estimated that $2.75 billion dollars was lost
in the greater Phoenix community by people getting killed or seriously injured between 2016-
2020 on the City of Phoenix High Injury Network (HIN). This figure doesn’t include the tens of
thousands other crashes that occurred on Phoenix streets that were damaging to a lesser degree.



When analyzing 5-year crash data (2015-2019), an alarming trend emerges. Although 94% of ALL
crash types (minor, serious injury, and fatal) are vehicle to vehicle incidents, when drilling down
to killed and serious injury motor vehicle crashes (KSI), the vulnerability of those outside of motor
vehicles becomes evident with people walking, bicycling, or riding a motorcycle involved in 46%
of KSI crashes. Within the same five-year study period, 65% of fatal crashes involved people walking,
bicycling, or riding a motorcycle with a large portion of fatal crashes (46%) involving a pedestrian. As a
crash increases in severity, those outside of vehicles are more likely to be the ones sustaining serious
injury and death. This plan aims to address safety for everyone on the streets of Phoenix no matter
how they travel around the city.




CITYWIDE CRASH 6% 6% 4%

TRENDS 25%
46%
(2015-2019) 15%

94%
15%

54%
Bicycle Crashes
35%
Pedestrian Crashes
Motorcycle Crashes
Vehicle Crashes


ALL Crashes KSI Crashes Fatal Crashes




Page 97
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022




THE PLANNING PROCESS
Building from decades of previous traffic and safety work, the City of Phoenix
initiated the Road Safety Action Plan (RSAP) in the Summer of 2021 to upgrade
evaluation tools, engage the public, collaborate with City staff from different
departments, and create a transparent safety plan that is comprehensive and
implementable. The planning process consisted of six phases that included: a
discovery phase, goals and visioning effort, safety tools and data improvement,
development of RSAP strategies, delivery of the RSAP, and finally the integration
of new safety measures and tools.



Q2 Q3 Q4




Discovery Phase

• Data collection
• 5 Year crash analysis
• Understanding city processes & tools
• City RSAP Working Group sessions




Goals and Visioning

02 • Determine High Injury Network & Emphasis Areas
• RSAP framework development related to the 5 E’s:
(Evaluation, Engineering, Enforcement, Education, & Equity)




Safety Tools & Data Improvement

03 • Create more timely crash data connections
• Begin development of crash data dashboard &
warrant tools


Page 98
Introduction




The process also included an internal City RSAP Working Group that established
guidance and partnerships at the beginning of the work effort (Discovery Phase),
and worked to develop the RSAP objectives and strategies together (RSAP
Strategies). This RSAP Working Group included both technical staff and executive
leadership to ensure that the strategies, implementation plan, and performance
metrics were realistic and highly beneficial to reduce KSI’s on Phoenix streets.
Essential partners in this RSAP Working Group include: the City Manager’s
Office, Community & Economic Development, Mayor and City Council Offices,
Fire, Housing, Human Services, IT Services, Neighborhood Services, Parks and
Rec, Planning and Development, Police, Public Transit, and Street Transportation
Departments. This group will transform into the RSAP Implementation Team upon
approval of the RSAP.


Q2 Q3 Q4
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Phase 2




RSAP Strategies Deliver Road Safety Action Plan

04 • Draft implementation strategies related to the 5 E’s
• Draft prioritization process
• City RSAP Working Group sessions
05 • Reporting & data evaluation process
• Final prioritization process
• Final Implementation plan




Safety Integration

• Complete crash data dashboard & reports
• Complete warrant tools
• Staff training for crash data & warrant tools
• Implement Vision Zero Task Force
PUBLIC
INVOLVEMENT
Phase 1




Page 99
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022




VISION ZERO COMMITMENT
Vision Zero refers to the ultimate goal of eliminating all fatalities and serious injuries on Phoenix
roadways. Beginning with the ethical belief that everyone – people walking, biking, taking transit, and
driving - have the right to move safely in their community; no one should be killed or seriously injured
in crashes on the transportation network; and that all traffic deaths are preventable. A Vision Zero
commitment sets measurable objectives, establishes a clear schedule and time-frame, and puts forth
strategies to accomplish the objectives.


Vision Zero Community




Bellevue
Seattle

Oregon Metro

Portland

Eugene
Minneapolis
Somerville
Cambridge
Madison Boston


Bethlehem New York City
Harrisburg
Jersey City
Chicago Philadelphia

Boulder Montgomery County
Sacramento Denver
Berkley Columbia Washington D.C.
San Francisco Alexandria
Alameda Richmond
Denver Regional
Fremont Watsonville Council of Governments
San Jose
Monterey
Santa Durham
San Luis Obispo Barbara
Charlotte
Los Angeles
La Mesa PHOENIX
Albuquerque
Tempe
San Diego
Macon




Austin

San Antonio Houston

Orlando
Tampa
Hillsborough County West Palm Beach
Anchorage Laredo
Fort Lauderdale




On February 16, 2022, the Phoenix City Council voted in favor of a resolution to commit to Vision Zero,
understanding that transportation safety is everyone’s responsibility, including both the City and road
users, and to be proactive in employing programs and strategies to meet City Council’s adopted goals
and objectives of zero traffic deaths by 2050. The City of Phoenix will join 51 cities and regions (as of
August 2021) in becoming a part of the Vision Zero Network, and 1 of 2 cities in Arizona.


Page 100
WHEREAS, Phoenix aspires to reduce the number of fatal and serious injury crashes on its streets to zero;

WHEREAS, Vision Zero is a City safety policy that takes an ethical approach toward achieving safety for all road users;

WHEREAS, in the past five years more than 900 people have lost their lives and more than 4,000 people were seriously injured
on Phoenix streets;

WHEREAS, traffic-related deaths and serious injuries are preventable;

WHEREAS, the severity of motor vehicle-related crashes can be reduced;

WHEREAS, Phoenix wants to be proactive in reducing fatal and serious injury crashes on our streets.

WHEREAS, transportation safety is everybody’s responsibility, including the City and road users;

WHEREAS, multiple City Departments, that include Street Transportation, Planning and Development, and Phoenix Police
departments, are actively employing programs to improve safety; and

WHEREAS, Vision Zero leverages existing programs and can create new programs and strategies to help meet the Council’s
adopted performance measure to achieve a reduction in the number of fatal and serious injury crashes to zero.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX AS FOLLOWS: The Phoenix City Council
hereby makes a commitment that the City of Phoenix will adopt the Vision Zero strategy with the goal of eliminating all traffic
fatalities for all users on Phoenix roadways.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 16th day of February, 2022




Page 101
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022




THE FEDERAL SAFE SYSTEMS APPROACH
When creating this Road Safety Action plan (RSAP), Phoenix strived to develop a plan that went
beyond traditional road safety measures by integrating best practices, Vision Zero Network guidance,
and Federal guidance recognizing the need to take action now. The Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) Safe Systems Approach focuses on a human-centric approach of intelligent transportation
system design, proactively identifying and addressing risks, and creating redundancies in safety
measures. People will still make mistakes, and crashes will still occur - but they shouldn’t end in life-altering
tragedy.




Safe Road Safe Safe Safe Post-Crash
Users Vehicles Speeds Roads Care


The Safe Systems Approach brings safety to the forefront of transportation investment and provides
a model for the Safety-first approach of this RSAP. It does so through a holistic view of the road
system that first anticipates human mistakes and second keeps impact energy on the human body
at tolerable levels according to the FHWA.

The Plan also prepares the City for funding opportunities through the Federal Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) by identifying a High Injury Network (HIN), developing actionable
strategies that address fatal and serious crash trends, and creating engineering, evaluation, equitable,
educational, and enforcement solutions that are comprehensive. The City of Phoenix will continue
to work with their federal, state (Arizona Department of Transportation and the Governor’s Office
of Highway Safety), regional (Maricopa Association of Governments and Valley Metro/Valley Metro
Rail), and local agencies to align safety plans, actions, projects, policies, and funding strategies for
implementation.

HUMAN-CENTRIC APPROACH

1. Death/serious injury is unacceptable
2. Humans make mistakes
3. Humans are vulnerable
4. Responsibility is shared
5. Safety is proactive
6. Redundancy is crucial


Page 102
VISION
Phoenix aspires to reduce the number
of fatal and serious injury crashes on
its streets to ZERO by 2050




GOALS
Create a Road Safety Action Plan that moves to VISION ZERO




Engage the public through an inclusive engagement process




Use data to drive decisions



Embrace the 5 E’s of safety
(Evaluation, Engineering, Enforcement, Education, & Equity)




Establish a culture of safety




Develop and implement strategies and countermeasures




Establish performance measures for evaluation


Page 103
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022




THE FACTS
CHAPTER 2




Page 104
The Facts



Through the creation of this Road Safety Action Plan (, the City of Phoenix analyzed 5 years of crash
data (2015-2019) to determine trends and understand the facts of road safety in the city. Data was
obtained from the Arizona Crash Information System (ACIS) maintained by the Arizona Department
of Transportation (ADOT). Appendix-A contains detailed crash analysis report.

Following the Federal Highway Administrations (FHWA) Safe Systems approach of honing in on
preventing serious and fatal crashes, the Phoenix team needed to determine how often these injuries
occur. In the five years analyzed, there were over 150,000 vehicular crashes that included about 5,000
crashes that resulted in a person getting killed or seriously injured (KSI) on Phoenix public roads. While
the total number of crashes has been increasing in the past years, the number of crashes resulting in
a fatality or serious injury has stayed between 2.6% and 3.8%.


QUICK FACTS:


46 04
of all fatal
crashes of all traffic
fatalities are
% involved
pedestrians % bicyclists

despite only making up 2.5% of all crashes, with most in a collision with a vehicle, a bicyclist will ALWAYS
pedestrian crashes occurring at night receive a far greater share of injury




21 15
of all KSI of all traffic
crashes are fatalities are
% speed related % motorcyclists

with Impaired Driving & Distracted Driving the primary despite only being involved in 2% of crashes, with 39%
factor in 15.3% & 3.7% of KSI crashes respectively of motorcyclists involved in crashes not wearing helmets




43 57
of all KSI of all KSI
crashes occur crashes occur
at signalized at roadway
% intersections % segments
with less than 6% of Phoenix’s signalized intersections with less than 3% of Phoenix’s roadways
accounting for 12% of all KSI crashes accounting for 12% of all KSI crashes




Page 105
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022




CRASH FACTORS
Understanding how and when crashes occur and who is involved are all critical factors in determining
how to prevent them in the future.




HOW The manner of collision is
an important descriptor of
Property Damage Only/Minor Injury Crashes (N=144,562)
Fatal/Serious Injury Crashes (N=4,906)
how crashes happen, and 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
the physics of a collision is a Left Turn 22.9%
23.5%
key factor in resulting injury. 17.8%
Angle
20.7%
Serious and fatal crashes 1.0%
Other - Pedestrian
19.1%
happen in a different way
Single Vehicle 7.0%
than the other collisions. 10.8%
Rear End 29.4%
The most common collision 9.9%
Head On 2.1%
manners of crashes that 5.3%
15.6%
result in a fatality or serious Sideswipe 4.1%
0.5%
injury are left-turn, angle, Other - Bicyclist 3.3%
and pedestrian crashes; Other 3.8%
3.0%
whereas among the less
severe crashes, the most
common collision manners
are rear-end, left-turn, and KSI Crashes Unrestrained Drivers %Speeding

angle crashes.
1400 120

Speed violations and not 90
wearing a seatbelt are 1200
two serious factors that
contribute to KSI crashes. 70

20.5% of crashes that killed

Share of KSI Crashes



Number of Crashes
or seriously injured people, 50
involved speeding and a 600
further 13% of KSI crashes
involved an unrestrained 400
22.9% 21.6% 21.3%
19.2% 17.8%
driver as the primary factor 20
in a fatality/serious injury. 15.3%
13.0% 10
11.8% 11.6% 12.4%
0 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019




Page 106
The Facts




WHEN
March was the month with the
highest number of crashes, averaging All crashes Average Temperature* (0F)
89 per day; July, on the other hand, 16,000
14,000 100
registered the lowest number

Number of Crashes
12,000


Temperature (0F)
10,000 80
of crashes (70 per day). Fridays 8,000 60
registered the highest number of 6,000
4,000
crashes, but Sundays registered 2,000
the highest rate of serious and fatal ry ar y Ma ril Ma Jun Jul y
crashes (4.1% of Sunday crashes
y e Au gu
ua bru rch Ap Se pte mb st
er
Jan Fe No Oc
vetob
mb er
De ce er
resulted in a fatality or serious injury,
mb er


compared to an average of 3.2% on
the other days of the week).
All Crashes Fatal/Serious Injury Crashes Pedestrian Crashes Vehicle Volume*
As might be expected, the time of 10.0%
day with the highest number of
crashes is the afternoon peak hour 8.0%

(from 3 pm to 6 pm), when 27% of

Share of Crashes
6.0%
crashes occurred. Crashes involving
a pedestrian most commonly happen 4.0%
between 6 pm to 9 pm, when more
2.0%
than 25% of all pedestrian crashes
were reported (the same period 0.0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
recorded 14% of all crashes and 19% Hour
of serious/fatal crashes).




WHO The largest age group representing Drivers of Unit 1** by Age
and Gender
Drivers of Unit 2-6 by Age
and Gender
Pedestrians and Bicyclists
by Age and Gender
drivers of the unit that contributed Female Male Female Male Female Male
most to the crash are individuals
15-24 15396 20880 15-24 12601 14199 0-14 199 389

between 15 to 24 years old. The
largest age group representing drivers 25-34 13680 18050 25-34 17427 18519
15-24 405 807


of other units are individuals from 25 353 758
25-34
to 34 years old. Men are more likely to 35-44 8864 12087 35-44 13289 15843


be involved in pedestrian and bicycle 35-44 294 578

45-54 6832 10521 45-54
crashes in Phoenix.
10631 14460

45-54 298 626



Understanding this data can inform 55-64 5054 7814 55-64 7257 10369

55-64 207 552

how resources can be directed 2932 4084 3112 4588
65-74 65-74
and targeted for educational and 65-74 99



awareness campaigns. 75+ 2803 5504 75+ 1231 1940 75+ 75 176


*Unit 1 is defined as the driver that contributes to a crash the most




Page 107
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022




HIGH INJURY
NETWORK (HIN)
The High Injury Network (HIN) is a map of corridors where the
highest amount of people have been killed and severely injured in
motor vehicle collisions, and is a tool for road safety initiatives. This
approach will help city staff focus limited resources on what is needed
and where so that funds can be invested in the areas that are most
impacted by death and injury.

Five years of data (2016-2020) was analyzed, including 5,473
motor vehicles crashes that resulted in serious injury or death.
This data was separated into the two separate categories of
Signalized Intersections and Segments (Phoenix public roads).
Appendix-B contains detailed list of Intersections & Segments


This analysis shows that 12% of KSI crashes occur at less than 6% of
Phoenix traffic signals, and 12% of KSI crashes occur on less than 3%
of Phoenix public roads.

See more info here: HIN GIS Story Map




Page 108
The Facts
RD
RIV
ER
W
NE
N




V
U 74
W CAREFREE HWY




o
W DOVE VALLEY RD ED
OV
EV
AL
LE
Y
RD


W SONORAN DES ERT DR

0 0.5 1 2 3 4
E SONOR
mi AN
DE
N
D
RT




NORTH VALLEY P K
SE
R




W
Y E DYNAMITE BLVD




W HAPPY VALLEY RD




E PINNACLE PEAK RD




N CAVE CREEK RD
VALLEY RD ED
ER EER
E DE
VA
! ! LLEY
D R




!
U
V


N 7TH ST



! U
V 51 N TATUM BLVD
! !
HIN Intersections
HIN Segments
E BELL RD
W BELL RD
! ! !
Legend §
¨
¦ 17 !

Fatal and Serious Injury (KSI) !

Crashes (2016 - 2020)
N SCOTTSDALE RD
W THUNDERBIRD RD
! ! ! ! E TH

Intersections >1. 98 Std. Deviation
UN
! D ER

N 7TH ST
BIR
(KSI crashes) D
RD
E CACTUS RD
! !


N 19TH AVE
Roadways > 2.6 Std. Deviation E SHEA BLVD
(KSI crashes per mile) ! !

W DUNLAP AVE
! ! !


! ! ! V
U 51



N 35TH AVE
W GLENDALE AVE E GLENDALE AVE
! !
E LINCOLN DR
!
! !

N 7TH ST

!
¡
¢60


W INDIAN SCHOOL RD E INDIAN SCHOOL RD
! ! ! W
! ! ! !! !
G
RA
! N
D



N 51ST AVE
A


N 44TH ST
VE
! ! ! ! ! !
¡
¢ 60


N 75TH AVE
E MCDOWEL L RD
! ! !
¦ !
§
¨ 10
§
¨
¦
!
§
¨
¦ 10
U
V 51 U
V
!

N 24TH ST
! E WASHINGTON ST
!! U
V 202


S 75TH AVE
S 19TH AVE
S 7TH ST
! U
V85
W BUCKEYE RD
! V
U 85 ! S 24TH ST
S 44
TH
ST




§
¨
¦ 17
U
V

S 51ST AVE §
¨
¦
! 10




! ! !
S 7TH ST
S 19TH AVE

S 48TH ST
! ! ! !

W BASELINE RD E BASELINE RD
!




Page 109
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022




THE 5 E’S
CHAPTER 3




Page 110
The 5 E’s



In addressing safety on Phoenix roadways, the City acknowledges that creating a safe transportation
network for all users is accomplished through a combination of non-infrastructure and infrastructure
projects and programs. The City currently takes a proactive and inclusive approach that recognizes
the Five E’s of Transportation Safety: Evaluation, Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Equity.
Formally recognizing this work as part of this plan allows the City to evaluate its programs, continue
work efforts, consider expansion, propose emphasis areas, create cohesive strategies that respond to
measures, and develop an implementation plan that is inclusive.



THE 5 E’S OF TRANSPORTATION SAFETY



EVALUATION ENGINEERING ENFORCEMENT EDUCATION EQUITY




All five E’s of Transportation Safety play a valuable role in supporting safety, but are most effective
when implemented together. The RSAP encourages collaboration between City departments on
these initiatives including, but not limited to the Street Transportation, Public Transit, Police, Fire,
Planning and Development, Neighborhood Services Departments, and others as appropriate.


Page 111
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022




EVALUATION Current Initiatives
The City of Phoenix evaluates crash data
for projects regularly and produces annual
collision summary reports; a general traffic
safety report, pedestrian safety report,
Evaluation focuses on network screening and bicyclist safety report. The evaluation
identifies trends over time, by collision
& benchmarking efforts to measure manner, by injury severity, locations with the
greatest number of collisions, crashes by
effectiveness of implemented initiatives violation type, and common characteristics
of pedestrian and bicyclist related crashes.
Evaluation efforts review past safety trends, benchmark current conditions, and
monitor conditions as improvements are implemented. Reviewing historical crash The Phoenix Police Department (PD)
data is an important component in understanding current safety trends, identifying coordinates with the Street Transportation
areas within the City experiencing higher crash frequencies, and prioritizing Department on crash trends and reports
on an annual basis. The annual collision
locations for improvements. Evaluation activities can be used to establish baseline
summaries provide information to PD
data for planning projects and support in setting goals.
for consideration in their work efforts.
PD reports crash data regularly to the
Governor’s Office of Highway Safety
(GOHS), which is required for grant funding.

The City of Phoenix partners with the
Maricopa Association of Governments
(MAG) and Arizona Department of




GOALS
Transportation (ADOT) to further
benchmark trends among the larger region.
Automation of crash analysis & MAG produces an annual list of top 100
summary reporting intersections ranked by crash risk within
the metro-Phoenix area, which considers
crash frequency, crash severity, and crash
type. While Phoenix is the largest city within
the MAG region; it also has the greatest
Linkage of implementation strategies number of intersections within the Top
to specific crash types 100 list. Collaboration with MAG further
supports the City’s evaluation efforts,
regional benchmarking, identification of
priority locations for further study and
improvements. In addition to evaluation, the
Identification of the High Injury MAG Top 100 list is also used to support
Network (HIN) regional funding pursuits.

The City regularly collects vehicular,
pedestrian, and bicycle counts to monitor
growth and trends within the City. Vehicular
Further integration of safety in the traffic counts are also collected to serve a
project development process critical role in traffic engineering studies;
including traffic signal warrant analyses,
pedestrian crossings, and left-turn signal
phasing studies.
Modernization of the traffic engineering
warrant analysis tools, including the traffic As the RSAP is implemented, benchmarking
will be used to measure effectiveness of
signal warrant tool, HAWK warrant tool, implemented strategies.
left-turn warrant tool, & prioritization




Page 112
The 5 E’s




ENGINEERING Current Initiatives
The City participates in formal Road
Safety Assessments (RSA), which involve
a multi-disciplinary, focused review of a
specific intersection or roadway segment.
Engineering identifies improvement Engineering solutions are developed to

projects anticipated to address roadway
address specific safety concerns that may
be present.

safety through roadway design, traffic Intersection improvements may

engineering, maintenance, operation & include additional lighting, traffic
signal improvements, sight visibility
planning improvements, crosswalk and curb ramp
improvements, curb extensions, and
signing and marking improvements. The
Locations for engineering review are identified based on high crash locations and
City also reviews traffic signal operations to
input from the public.
select appropriate left-turn phasing, re-time
signals, and coordinate signals along a
corridor. Roadway segment improvements
may include raised medians and/or
other forms of access control, lane re-
purposing to provide bike lanes, sidewalk
improvements, midblock pedestrian




GOALS
crossings, additional lighting, and signing
Identification of safety-focused emphasis and marking improvements.
areas to focus resources Phoenix uses the High Intensity Activated
Crosswalk (HAWK) beacon signal as a tool
to help make it easier and safer for people
Development of engineering strategies to to cross busy streets. HAWK signals can
reduce fatal and serious injury crashes, be installed on streets with regular traffic
based on focus areas and targeted signals as part of the city’s coordinated
signal system. Phoenix has been installing
locations
HAWK signals since 2009 after they
were approved by the Federal Highway
Administration. Phoenix activated its 75th
Integration of safety analysis into project & HAWK location in March 2022.
program development processes




Page 113
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022




ENFORCEMENT Current Initiatives
The Phoenix Police Department (PD)
uses several different squads to target
speeding, moving violations, and driving
under the influence (DUI) with a nighttime
Enforcement focuses on policing, focus. This enforcement is conducted by
precinct squads that review past collision
preventing & mitigating behaviors data reports that the Street Transportation
Department shares, and through click-it
affecting road safety or ticket grants from GOHS. The patrol
location depends on the focus of the squad:
DUI, street racing, enforcement, or traffic
education and safety. The enforcement
squads rotate throughout the city.

The Traffic Education and Safety squad is
response driven through special requests
from internal City departments, Council, and
citizen concerns. Residents and community
members can contact PD to share concerns
through the PDt Traffic Complaint Hotline,
the dedicated e-mail address (traffic.
complaints@phoenix.gov), and a web-
based submission form. These requests are
documented, investigated, and reported out.

Complementary to the enforcement squads
is the Traffic Impact Program that focuses
on data driven location needs (crashes or
complaints, not associated with rotation).
Locations are identified by the speed
complaint hotline, if there are a high number




GOALS
of crashes in a period of time, a high-profile
Generation of crash analysis tools and crash, or information from council offices or
summary reports to support the Police neighboring jurisdictions.

Department Automated photo enforcement in the City
of Phoenix ended in early 2020. While
Development of enforcement strategies the program is no longer active, the PD
has a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes, webpage related to the previous red light
based on focus areas and trends in traffic camera enforcement program.
user behavior and violations.


Support of efforts to enforce safety
ordinances and development requirements




Page 114
The 5 E’s




EDUCATION Current Initiatives
Many City departments work together to
create traffic safety materials, organize
school safety programs, and education
within the community.
Education efforts consist of communication School Events
campaigns & initiatives that teach & The City provides leadership, assistance,
and training to schools across the city to
promote safe roadway behavior for all help ensure safety for students who walk
or bike to school. The Street Transportation
users, including people driving, riding School Safety section is responsible for
review and responding to pedestrian
transit, walking, or bicycling and traffic related concerns that affect
all public, charter, private, and parochial
K-12 schools within the City of Phoenix.
Current initiatives include the Safe Routes
to School (SRTS) program, Walk/Bike to
School Days, Bike Rodeos, and resources
for schools, students, parents, teachers,
and crossing guards. Bike Rodeos are held
at elementary schools in coordination with
the SRTS program through efforts by the
Street Transportation and PD, which teach
younger students bicycle safety and provide
bicycle helmets to the community.

Safety Events
Phoenix PD leads educational DUI events
at local high schools at the request of
school/district administration. For example,
PD has held events at high schools prior




GOALS
Development of education strategies to to Homecoming/Prom events to educate
students on impaired driving and distracted
reduce fatal & serious injury crashes, based driving. PD and Fire departments partner
on emphasis areas & targeted locations on child-safety restraint events, and at
neighborhood block watch events as
requested.

Outreach and Education Campaigns
Identification of new methods to
The City continues to increase awareness
communicate existing campaigns
and education in roadway safety through
education campaigns, which are integrated
using social media, public service
Expanded collaboration with state, regional, announcements, printed material, and
& local partners for funding opportunities & engagement in community events. Current
focused campaigns include:
coordinated messages of safety analysis into
• Hands Free
project & program development processes
• See Me AZ
• Heads Up
• Scan the Streets for Wheels & Feet




Page 115
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022




EQUITY Current Initiatives
In 2021, the City of Phoenix included
funding in their annual budget approval
to open the Office of Diversity, Equity and
Inclusion (DEI).
Equity in transportation ensures that work “The charge of the office is to ensure
efforts are free from bias, & identifies, equitability, equitable distribution of city
services and to champion the delivery
understands, & eliminates barriers that of racially equitable services for the
community and for city staff across the city
exist for people using the network. of Phoenix”

-Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson

While the office is in its early stage of
formation, the City, including the Street
Transportation Department, has integrated
equity into many of its current work efforts.

The Transportation 2050 Program (T2050)
was approved by voters in 2015. This
program both continues and expands
funding for bus service, dial-a-ride,
light rail, mobility improvements, traffic
signal upgrades, paving, and other street
improvements. A key component of this
35-year, $16.7 billion investment is the




GOALS
goal of ensuring that Phoenicians have
Evaluate characteristics of residents to a viable and equitable transit system.
This system will support Phoenicians
understand if the transportation network is with frequent dial-a-ride, bus, and light
safe & accessible where they live rail service assisting residents who
don’t have or choose not to travel in a
vehicle. The roadway program supports
Equitable integration in community the transit system and is committed
engagement to understand the diversity to install 135 miles of sidewalks, over
1,000 miles of bike lanes, install/upgrade
of residents, consider alternative outreach 2,000 new street lights, replace aging
methods, & provide opportunities for all traffic signals, and invest $240 million for
major street improvements. A number
City residents to be involved of these programs have considered
equity in their planning, prioritization, and
implementation phases.

In addition, The City of Phoenix
Street Transportation Department
conducted an equity analysis to evaluate
demographics of residents to understand
if the transportation network is safe and
accessible where they live. This analysis
will also ensure equity is integrated into
community engagement to understand
the diversity of residents, consider
alternative outreach methods, and
provide opportunities for all City residents
involved.



Page 116
The 5 E’s




• The City of Phoenix Street
Transportation Department
Equity Analysis (shown in
blue) highlights areas of the
city that have concentrations
of people and households that:
• Do Not Own a Car
• Are Low-Income / In Poverty
• Are Young (0-19)
• Are Elderly (65+)
• Are of a Minority Group
• Have a Disability
As shown right, there is a strong
correlation between the HIN and
equity areas. HIN Intersections
HIN Segments
Parallel to the City evaluation Phoenix Equity Area
is the USDOT Underserved USDOT Underserved Community
Community Analysis (shown in
yellow) as part of the Federal N
Justice40 Initiative. This analysis
included communities that are:
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
Mi




• Historically Disadvantaged
• Transportation Disadvantaged
• Health Disadvantaged
• Economically Disadvantaged
• Equity Disadvantaged
• Resilience Disadvantaged
• Environmentally
Disadvantaged
When implementing strategies,
projects, & programs noted in this
plan, these equity analyses will be
included and utilized.


Page 117
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022




ENGAGING
CHAPTER 4




PHOENICIANS
Page 118
Engaging Phoenicians



This plan would not exist without direction from engaged and concerned Phoenicians. The input of
those who travel Phoenix’s roadways, whether driving, walking, biking, or taking transit is essential
to make streets safer for everyone. Public involvement was ongoing throughoutthe RSAP process,
and included online and virtual engagement opportunities as well as in person. Both efforts were
used to reach as many Phoenix residents as possible while COVID-19 precautions were in place, and
to ensure an equitable approach was delivered. These tactics were successful; over 3,000 people
participated online, over 4,500 location based safety comments provided, and staff met with residents
and shared information at 21 community touchpoints.

THE RSAP PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT EFFORT AIMED TO:
• Inform and educate Phoenicians about the traffic safety problem and the Road Safety Action Plan, and to
• Consult, involve, and understand the community’s perspectives about safety issues and the high amount of people
getting killed and severely injured on Phoenix roadways.




Responding to these objectives, the project conducted 3 main work efforts to facilitate meaningful input:

• Continuous communication to ensure residents had an opportunity to learn about the project. This effort began
with the launch of the project website and then integrated social media content, branding, email notifications,
presentations, fact sheets, videos, and created posters/flyers throughout the life of the project.

• Phase 1: Community Engagement focused on learning which traffic safety issues Phoenicians were most concerned
about and what they would like to see this plan accomplish.

• Phase 2: Public Input Provided an opportunity for review, comments, suggestions, and prioritization on the draft
RSAP strategies (as presented in June 2022), and used Phoenix city libraries and community events to spread the
word about the online survey and to ask residents to take the Vision Zero Pledge.




Page 119
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022



WHAT PHOENIX IS SAYING...




Survey respondents said
>60%
Preventing of survey respondents


Traffic Deaths
think Phoenix streets are
unsafe

is the number one priority
for this plan




Driver
>1000
comments related to

Behavior missing/inadequate infrastructure
is the number one bike facilities, street crossings,
safety concern pedestrian facilities,
& intersections




>2600
72%
people completed
the Phase 1 online
engagement exercise
of survey respondents
strongly agreed/agreed to all
40 proposed strategies


Page 120
Engaging Phoenicians



Phase 1: Community Engagement kicked off in November 2021 with a virtual meeting hosted by the City
of Phoenix using the WebEx platform. 116 people attended the virtual public meeting that included
both Spanish and English speaking attendees with a live Spanish speaking interpreter. The public
meeting engaged participants with polling, breaks for questions and discussions, and a presentation
about the project. The presentation included an overview of the project, the planning process, project
background information, information about the High Injury Network and crash trends.

Since in-person engagement opportunities were limited, the project utilized an online engagement
tool, MetroQuest, to gather information about residents safety concerns on Phoenix streets. MetroQuest
is an engagement platform that is designed for transportation planning. Surveys that both educate
the public and gather informed output, helping public involvement teams get tangible insights from
diverse communities and consistently deliver outstanding public involvement. The MetroQuest
Survey received over 2,600 responses and over 5,000 comments submitted through February 2022.

To ensure a diverse geographic outreach within the City that provided Phoenicians with an
opportunity to learn about the RSAP, how to engage and use MetroQuest, and have time to discuss
the project with Phoenix staff, a series of community touchpoints were completed after the initial public
meeting through February 2022. This effort continued to drive residents to visit the RSAP website and
complete the MetroQuest activity. Community touchpoints during this time included in person and
online meetings, and a community event in Laveen. During Phase 1 Public Engagement, the Street
Transportation Department created 35 tweets encouraging people to take the MetroQuest survey,
which accounted for a total 14,727 impressions

Phase 2: Public Input began in June 2022 and focused on receiving feedback on the draft strategies
by way of an on-line survey. This stage of involvement began with sharing the RSAP’s draft five
focus areas, fifteen objectives, and forty strategies. The draft strategies were posted online at the
project webpage, an online video (accessed over 260 times) shared the details of strategies, city staff
presented this information at a City Council sub-committee, e-mails and social media communications
were sent to residents, staff attended community events to share information and talk with the public,
and project posters with information about the draft strategies and survey were hung at City libraries.
Over 550 people responded to the survey, staff connected with over 300 residents at events, and over
100 residents wrote their own pledge to help do their part to get to zero deaths on Phoenix streets.




Page 121
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022




USING PHOENICIAN INPUT
With the goal of creating a series of actionable strategies in this plan, the integration of public feedback
into the development and finalization of the strategies, and prioritization is vital to ensure that this
plan works. Both phases of public input provided a platform to receive both open input, and specific
feedback on trends revealed from the data analysis and planning process.

The feedback from Phase 1 helped to:

• Develop strategies around enforcement and education for driver behavior. A significant share of
input received noted that driver behavior was a major issue. In the spirit of the 5 E’s, this feedback
also supports developing engineering strategies that address speeding, red light running, not-
yielding, turn restrictions, and like counter measures to save people’s lives.

• Prioritize preventing traffic deaths as the number one goal of the plan, which aligns with the City
Council adoption of Vision Zero, and supports the prioritization of strategies for reducing and
eliminating killed and serious injury (KSI) crashes.

• Develop strategies connected to improving signalization at intersections, pedestrian safety,
assessing unsignalized crossings, and systematic roadway design concepts. Adequate
transportation infrastructure for all users: people biking, walking, crossing the street, and driving
is a high demand of Phoenicians.

The input from Phase 2 informed:

• The implementation plan and performance measurements related to all focus areas presented in
the following chapter. Survey respondents ranked Intersections the highest priority of the 5 focus
areas of the RSAP. Behavior Related and Pedestrians & Bicyclists were tied in second place, with
General Strategies and Segments following.

• The inclusion of all draft strategies presented in the following chapter into the final plan. 72% of
survey respondents strongly agreed/agreed to all 40 strategies as presented in June 2022. For
strategies in the Pedestrian & Bicyclist, and Intersection focus areas, agreement increased to 80%
to 96%. 2 additional strategies were included based on community input.

• The selection of projects to request funding through federal grant opportunities. Reviewing the
public feedback from the survey, the strategy that received the highest amount of respondents
that strongly agree or agree, 96%, was: Analyze the transportation network to identify locations
that have the greatest number of risk-factors that contribute to pedestrian and bicyclist crashes,
and then identify countermeasure improvements.




Page 122
Engaging Phoenicians




Moving towards Vision Zero is a commitment that’s only
attainable when EVERYONE does their part




We’d like to sincerely thank everyone who participated in
developing this Road Safety Action Plan




Page 123
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022




TAKING
CHAPTER 5




ACTION

Page 124
Taking Action



Vision Zero acknowledges that there are many factors that contribute to safe mobility - including
roadway design, speeds, enforcement, behaviors, technology, and policies. One of the distinct goals
of this Plan is to approve a group of actionable strategies that over time, will achieve the shared goal
of zero fatalities and serious injuries that encompass evaluation, education, enforcement, engineering,
and equitable activities. The evaluation of crash data and further public input led to the identification
of five Focus Areas where implementation of safety strategies is anticipated to have the highest impact
on reducing traffic fatalities and serious injuries.




FOCUS AREAS
GENERAL STRATEGIES - Strategies focused on internal programmatic changes within Phoenix
BEHAVIOR RELATED - Strategies focused on mitigating speeding & other roadway user behavior
PEDESTRIANS & BICYCLISTS - Strategies focused on pedestrian/bicyclist safety policy & infrastructure
INTERSECTIONS - Strategies focused on improving safety at intersections
SEGMENTS - Strategies focused on improving safety on roadway segments



Within each Focus Area, there are three objectives (15 Acronyms
total) that provides distinct guidance on what needs to be
HIN: High Injury Network
accomplished. Each objective has time-bound performance
STR: Street Transportation Department
metrics to measure success throughout implementation
PTD: Public Transit Department
of the city’s Vision Zero initiative. Performance metrics
Planning and Development
will track and evaluate either programmatic metrics, an PDD:
Department
increase/decrease in a given metric, or the installation/
NSD: Neighborhood Services Department
improvement of infrastructure. Where possible, metrics list
PD: Police Department
items that should be completed within a given time-frame.
FD: Fire Department
ExPA: External Public Agencies: USDOT,
The heart of this RSAP are the 42 strategies outlined in this FHWA, ADOT, MAG, Maricopa County,
section. Through this planning process, over a hundred Valley Metro, City of Phoenix Public
School Districts, and Neighboring
strategies were initially evaluated, and through a series of Cities
workshops with the City of Phoenix RSAP Working Group ExA: External Associations: Private
alongside community input, pared down to the those Businesses, Neighborhood
presented. The strategies presented were determined to Associations, Business
be both implementable and have a high potential to make Improvement Districts BIDs,
Developers, etc.
a significant impact in reducing KSI crashes in Phoenix.
They are also connected to at least one of the 5 E’s and
will be applied through of the following categories: HIN
Strategies, Systemic Implementation, and Location-Specific Strategies. Each strategy also has a list
of departments and agencies that will be responsible for its implementation.



Page 125
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022




HOW TO READ THIS SECTION

Focus Area
There are 5 focus areas
identified in this plan for
safety improvements




Objective
There are 3 objectives
per focus area (15 total).
Objectives are the
overarching goal that each
strategy & performance
metric will support




Performance
Metrics
Each objective has 1-4 performance
metrics that are time-bound
measures by which Phoenix will
track their success in implementation
of this plan




Performance Metrics Symbol Key

Programmatic Build or Install
Track Decrease Track Increase
Metric Infrastructure



Page 126
Taking Action



Strategies
There are multiple strategies that contribute to
the achievement of each objective



5 E’s
Each strategy is connected to at least
one of the 5 E’s (Evaluation, Engineering,
Enforcement, Education, Equity)




Responsible Partners
Each strategy has a lead agency
responsible for its implementation, along
with partner agencies & departments that
will provide support to the lead




Application
Application describes how and where the
strategy will be applied within the city -
whether it be internal programmatic or
systemic changes, strategies applied at
specific locations, or strategies that are
focused on the HIN




Page 127
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022




FOCUS AREA :

1. GENERAL STRATEGIES


OBJECTIVE 1.A ESTABLISH FOUNDATIONAL ELEMENTS OF VISION ZERO
INCLUDING A TIMELINE & GOALS FOR IMPLEMENTATION &
EVALUATION

Implement a Vision Zero Task Force Create a Vision Zero status report on
consisting of a multi-departmental team objectives, updated every year in the
for continued oversight of reducing KSI fall & published in the spring
crashes


OBJECTIVE 1.B REDUCE CRASH RISK ON ROADWAYS BY ENHANCING SAFETY
DATA COLLECTION & EVALUATION

Streamline RSA process to identify & Develop crash data dashboard to
implement feasible improvements by 2023 identify & rank crash locations by 2023

Integrate crash data from Phoenix PD / Conduct before/after evaluations
ADOT on a monthly basis by 2023 for previously implemented safety
projects



OBJECTIVE 1.C REDUCE CRASH RISK ON ROADWAYS BY CREATING A
CULTURE OF ROAD SAFETY WITHIN THE CITY

Integrate safety review in development Ensure that road safety expenditures
of CIP projects & private development are at least $60M per year
projects by 2024




Page 128
Taking Action


5 E's: Identifies the type
Application of
of work effort connected Partners
Strategy
to the strategy
The Lead
GENERAL STRATEGIES HIN, Systemic, Department
Location is Italicized,

Evaluation Engineering Enforcement Education
Specific, & support
Programmatic departments
Equity are included.
1.A Establish foundational elements of Vision Zero including timeline & goals for implementation & evaluation
Create a City of Phoenix inter-departmental Vision Zero Task STR, PTD, PDD,
GN.01A      Programmatic
Force. NSD, PD, FD
Create an annual Vision Zero status report including updated STR, PTD, PDD,
GN.01B crash statistics from the crash dashboard, high injury network      Programmatic NSD, PD, FD, ExPA,
(HIN), & status of performance measure targets. ExA
1.B Reduce crash risk on roadways by enhancing safety collection & evaluation
Continue to analyze safety data annually to identify high Location Specific,
GN.02A severity crash areas & implement countermeasures at prioritized    Systemic, STR, PDD
locations. Programmatic
Improve crash data sharing between the Street Transportation
GN.02B Department, Police Department, & Arizona Department of  Programmatic STR, PD, ExPA
Transportation.
Continue to conduct Road Safety Audits (RSA), focusing on
HIN,
the HIN, to identify appropriate countermeasures; develop & STR, PTD, PD, FD,
GN.02C   Programmatic,
implement recommended countermeasures through projects at Location Specific
ExPA
these locations.
Enhance and streamline the process to implement RSA
GN.02D   Programmatic STR, PTD, PD
recommendations.
1.C Reduce crash risk on roadways by creating a culture of road safety within the City
Incorporate analysis of crash history & countermeasure safety
Systemic,
GN.03A improvements for City of Phoenix capital improvement projects &     STR
Programmatic
private development projects.
Create a road safety crash dashboard available to city staff for Systemic, STR, PTD, PDD,
GN.03B    
analysis & development of countermeasures into City practices. Programmatic NSD, PD, FD
Incorporate a Vision Zero component into required driver training
GN.03C programs for City of Phoenix employees (including municipal  Programmatic STR
courts) & contractors.
Develop and maintain a list of prioritized planning, pre-design,
Location Specific,
GN.03D design, & construction projects in pursuit of local, state, federal, &   STR, PTD, NSD, PD
Programmatic
private grant funding as appropriate.
Incorporate use of USLIMITS2, a free, web-based tool, to assess
and establish speed limits for specific segments of roadway with
high pedestrian/bicyclist activity, on-street parking, more than
30 driveways per mile, or above average crash history. USLIMITS2
GN.03E   Programmatic STR
produces an unbiased and objective suggested speed limit
value based on 50th and 85th percentile speeds, traffic volumes,
roadway type, roadway setting, number of access points, crash
history, and pedestrian/bicyclist activity.

Page 129
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022




FOCUS AREA :

2. BEHAVIOR RELATED


OBJECTIVE 2.A REDUCE THE NUMBER OF KSI CRASHES INVOLVING
PEDESTRIANS & BICYCLISTS THROUGH BEHAVIORAL CHANGES

Expand transportation safety enforcement Conduct pedestrian & bicyclist
impact programs by 10% per year enforcement impact programs at least
12 times per year




OBJECTIVE 2.B REDUCE THE NUMBER OF KSI CRASHES RELATED TO SPEEDING,
RED-LIGHT RUNNING, DISTRACTED DRIVING, & AGGRESSIVE
DRIVING

Target KSI crashes associated with driver- Re-institute automated enforcement,
behavior violations not to increase at a & install units at 10 intersections or
rate greater than population growth school zones per year

Conduct behavior-related enforcement impact programs at least 12 times per year




OBJECTIVE 2.C REDUCE THE NUMBER OF KSI CRASHES RELATED TO
IMPAIRED DRIVING (DRUGS & ALCOHOL)

Conduct DUI enforcement programs at Target KSI crashes associated with
least 18 times per year impaired driving not to increase at a
rate greater than population growth




Page 130
Taking Action


5 E's: Identifies the type of
Application of
work effort connected to Partners
Strategy
the strategy
The Lead
BEHAVIOR RELATED STRATEGIES HIN, Systemic, Department
Location is Italicized,

Evaluation Engineering Enforcement Education
Specific, & support
Programmatic departments
Equity are included.
1.A Reduce the number of KSI crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists through behavioral changes.
Continue & enhance paid and earned media campaigns
STR, PTD, PDD,
(electronic, print, radio, and broadcast) to promote public HIN,
BH.01A   NSD, PD, FD, ExPA,
awareness of pedestrian and bicyclist safety. This includes using Programmatic
ExA
new & effective methods to reach target audiences.
BH.01B Expand enforcement of school zone laws.  Location Specific PD, STR, ExA
Expand current efforts for student pedestrian & bicyclist HIN, Location
BH.01C education, safety, & awareness efforts, focusing on schools within   Specific, PD, FD, STR, PDD
1/4 mile of the HIN network. Programmatic
Conduct proactive enforcement of traffic laws amongst all road
users on the HIN network, with emphasis on risk factors that
BH.01D   HIN PD, STR, PDD
contribute to pedestrians & bicyclists being involved in motor
vehicle crashes.
2.B Reduce the number of KSI crashes related to speeding, red-light running, distracted driving, & aggressive driving
Increase visible enforcement programs, that includes
reintroducing automated enforcement & red light running Location Specific,
BH.02A     PD, STR
cameras. These measures can be effective in deterring drivers Programmatic
from speeding & driving distracted.
Develop roadway safety awareness & education campaigns for
people driving vehicles, in concert with enforcement efforts,
BH.02B to specifically target change in road user behavior related to   Programmatic STR, PD, ExPA
speeding, red-light running, distracted driving, & aggressive
driving.
Continue to evaluate & implement speed management
BH.02C techniques related to roadway design, roadway surface, traffic      Programmatic STR, PD
control, community education, and speed enforcement
2.C Reduce the number of KSI crashes related to impaired driving (Drugs & Alcohol)
Expand the DUI Enforcement through use of high-visibility
BH.03A enforcement techniques, saturation patrols, & integrated  Programmatic PD, STR, NSD
enforcement tactics.




Page 131
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022




FOCUS AREA :

3. PEDESTRIANS & BICYCLISTS


OBJECTIVE 3.A REDUCE CRASH RISK INVOLVING PEOPLE WALKING & BIKING BY
EXPANDING SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL EFFORTS

Implement safety improvements at 20 schools per year focused on schools on arterials,
collectors, within mobility areas, and with high equity need.




OBJECTIVE 3.B REDUCE THE NUMBER OF KSI CRASHES INVOLVING PEOPLE
WALKING & BIKING WITH GEOMETRIC RECONFIGURATION &
SYSTEMIC COUNTERMEASURES

Install 20 mid-block improvements Reduce pedestrian-related fatal
per year crashes by 10% per year


Develop pedestrian safety toolkit by 2027




OBJECTIVE 3.C REVIEW EXISTING GAPS IN PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE &
PRIORITIZE IMPROVEMENTS

Develop a risk factor network to Develop a plan to implement annual
identify locations with greatest risk improvements to mitigate risk factors
by 2025 by 2027

Improve shade coverage at 60 transit stops per year




Page 132
Taking Action


5 E's: Identifies the type
Application of
of work effort connected Partners
Strategy
to the strategy

PEDESTRIANS & BICYCLISTS HIN, Systemic,
The Lead
Department
STRATEGIES Location is Italicized,

Evaluation Engineering Enforcement Education
Specific, & support
Programmatic departments
Equity are included.
3.A Reduce crash risk involving people walking & biking by expanding safe routes to school efforts
Develop Safe Routes to School plans for public, private, & charter
HIN,
PB.01A elementary, middle, & high schools with crossings of arterial     STR
Programmatic
roads, & construct recommendations.
Implement school zone safety countermeasures for school Systemic,
PB.01B crossings of collector roads. Develop school typologies for    Location Specific, STR
prioritization. Programmatic
3.B Reduce the number of KSI crashes involving people walking & biking with geometric reconfiguration & systemic countermeasures
Continue constructing mid-block crossings at priority arterial
PB.02A road locations that include: HAWKs, signing, markings, & lighting   HIN STR
to provide a safe place for people walking & bicycling to cross.
Develop a best practice approach for pedestrian crossings to Systemic,
PB.02B    STR, PTD
improve safety in a context sensitive manner. Programmatic
Develop a checklist or toolkit to improve safety for pedestrians
& bicyclists through smart design choices for all to be used in Systemic,
PB.02C   PTD, STR
designing City of Phoenix capital improvement program projects Programmatic
& private development projects.
3.C Review existing gaps in pedestrian infrastructure & prioritize improvements
Analyze the transportation network to identify locations that
have the greatest number of risk-factors (which contribute to Systemic, STR, PTD, NSD,
PB.03A   
pedestrian & bicyclist crashes), & then identify countermeasure Location Specific PD, FD
improvements.
Establish natural or structural shade in pedestrian refuge &
PB.03B   Location Specific STR, PTD, PDD
waiting areas.




Page 133
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022




FOCUS AREA :

4. INTERSECTIONS


OBJECTIVE 4.A REDUCE THE NUMBER OF KSI CRASHES AT UNSIGNALIZED
INTERSECTIONS WITH GEOMETRIC RECONFIGURATION &
SYSTEMIC COUNTERMEASURES

Develop geospatial process for Develop list of priority intersections &
identifying unsignalized crashes by improvements by 2024




OBJECTIVE 4.B REDUCE THE NUMBER OF KSI CRASHES AT SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTIONS WITH GEOMETRIC RECONFIGURATION &
SYSTEMIC COUNTERMEASURES

Complete 15 HIN intersection rebuilds Reduce KSI crashes at unsignalized
per year intersections by 8% per year




OBJECTIVE 4.C REDUCE THE NUMBER OF KSI CRASHES AT SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTIONS WITH SIGNAL PHASING OR TIMING

Evaluate the 68 HIN intersections for appropriate pedestrian safety operations & left-turn
operational improvements by 2024




Page 134
Taking Action


5 E's: Identifies the type
Application of
of work effort connected Partners
Strategy
to the strategy
The Lead
INTERSECTIONS STRATEGIES HIN, Systemic, Department
Location is Italicized,

Evaluation Engineering Enforcement Education
Specific, & support
Programmatic departments
Equity are included.
4.A Reduce the number of KSI crashes at unsignalized intersections w/ geometric reconfiguration & systemic countermeasures
Develop a geospatial network screening process, that includes
Systemic,
IT.01A the frequency & severity of crashes, for unsignalized intersections   STR
Location Specific
to identify priority locations for improvements.
For priority unsignalized intersections that do not or are not
Systemic,
IT.01B anticipated to meet traffic signal warrant criteria, evaluate &  STR
Location Specific
identify alternative countermeasures to improve traffic safety.
4.B Reduce the number of KSI crashes at signalized intersections w/ geometric reconfiguration & systemic countermeasures
Review sight visibility at HIN intersections to ensure adequate
sight distance for left-turning vehicles. Re-stripe/reconstruct
IT.02A    HIN STR
single left turn lanes to have zero or positive offsets, where
protected lefts are not implemented.
Continue efforts to identify existing traffic signals with legacy
HIN,
IT.02B equipment including lighting level, & reconstruct them to current    STR
Programmatic
standards.
IT.02C Install additional far-side bus bays at priority locations.    Location Specific PTD, STR, PDD
4.C Reduce the number of KSI crashes at signalized intersections with signal phasing or timing
Evaluate & modify left-turn phasing at signalized intersections on HIN,
IT.03A    STR
the HIN to reduce conflicting movements. Programmatic
Evaluate & implement use of leading pedestrian interval (LPI) at
IT.03B intersections with greatest crash risk of pedestrian-motor vehicle    Location Specific STR
collisions.
Review procedure on establishing yellow change & all-red
IT.03C    Programmatic STR
clearance intervals.
Continue to evaluate & implement ITS improvements to provide
IT.03D greater signal efficiency, coordination, communication, including   Systemic STR
piloting & evaluating adaptive traffic signal control.
Install emergency vehicle preemption at locations with the
IT.03E   HIN, Systemic FD, STR
greatest need.




Page 135
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix || Draft
September 2022
Report - June 2022




FOCUS AREA :

5. SEGMENTS


OBJECTIVE 5.A REDUCE THE NUMBER OF KSI CRASHES ON ROAD CORRIDORS
WITH ACCESS MANAGEMENT (REDUCING CONFLICT POINTS)

Reduce KSI crashes on Install 4 Miles of Raised Medians per year with less
segments by 2% per year than 8 median breaks per mile for the first 5 Years




OBJECTIVE 5.B REDUCE THE NUMBER OF KSI CRASHES ON ROAD CORRIDORS BY
IMPROVING VISIBILITY, ILLUMINATION, & DRIVER EXPECTANCY

Initiate 3 single sided miles of lighting per year for the first 5 years and install a
minimum of 3 miles per year by year 3




OBJECTIVE 5.C REDUCE THE NUMBER OF NIGHTTIME CRASHES BY IMPLEMENTING
SYSTEMIC LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS CITYWIDE


Reduce nighttime crashes by 5% Per Year




Page 136
Taking Action


5 E's: Identifies the type
Application of
of work effort connected Partners
Strategy
to the strategy
The Lead
SEGMENTS STRATEGIES HIN, Systemic, Department
Location is Italicized,

Evaluation Engineering Enforcement Education
Specific, & support
Programmatic departments
Equity are included.
5.A Reduce the number of KSI crashes on corridors with access management (reducing conflict points)
Update the current Access Management Standards within the
Street Planning & Design Guidelines to provide guidance for all
STR, PTD, PDD, PD,
SG.01A roadway classifications & all types of intersections, including    Programmatic
ExPA, ExA
unsignalized intersections & driveways (full access, partial
access, left-in/left-out, & right-in/right-out).
STR, PTD, PDD,
SG.01B Install raised medians on HIN corridors to reduce conflict points.  HIN
NSD PD
5.B Reduce the number of KSI crashes on road corridors by improving visibility, illumination, & driver expectancy
Improve street lighting luminescence & uniformity on the HIN
SG.02A network at segments with the greatest nighttime crash history in    HIN STR
coordination with the current city street lighting standards.
Review unbalanced lane undivided arterials (i.e., two northbound
SG.02B lanes & three southbound lanes) for potential reconfiguration   Programmatic STR, PDD
based on evaluation factors such as crash rate, speed, & volume.
5.C Reduce the number of nighttime crashes by implementing systemic lighting improvements citywide
Develop an approach to review & prioritize lighting improvements
Programmatic,
SG.03A (improve or create positive lighting, coverage, brightness, etc.) at    STR, PDD
Location Specific
uncontrolled, marked mid-block crossings.
For arterial & major collector streets with single sided lighting,
SG.03B add the other side of lighting in coordination with current city   Location Specific STR, PDD
lighting standards.




Page 137
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022




TOOLBOXES
To support the implementation of various strategies presented in this chapter, the City of Phoenix
will utilize proven best practices, guidelines, toolkits, and handbooks from external organizations
that include the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE). These resources are collectively referred to as toolboxes. These
toolboxes are to be used to support advancing the RSAP strategies, apply proven engineering,
enforcement, education, and evaluation designs and methods, and as quick references to determine
how to best approach and solve a traffic safety issue within the city. Below are several examples of
toolboxes presented by focus area. Appendix-C contains the entire list of toolboxes


Strategies to Coordinate Zero Deaths Efforts for State and Local Agencies, FHWA-SA-20-061, November 2020 - The document




GENERAL STRATEGIES
is designed to help state and local agencies foster and build stronger relationships that support coordinated zero deaths efforts. The
document describes work toward the Safe System Approach for reaching the zero deaths goal, including managing speed for safety,
strengthening safety culture, and leveraging data and community input to prioritize changes. Access: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/
zerodeaths/docs/Strategies_for_VZ_Coordination_112020.pdf
A Strategic Approach to Transforming Traffic Safety Culture to Reduce Deaths and Injuries, NCHRP Document 25, 2018 -
A strategic approach to transform traffic safety culture should leverage the values and change the beliefs of all relevant traffic safety
stakeholders across the social environment. The purpose of this report is to provide state agencies responsible for traffic safety (and their
traditional, as well as non-traditional, traffic safety partners) with guidance for a strategic approach to transform the traffic safety culture
of road users and stakeholders. The goal is to use this approach to sustain improvements in traffic safety for all road users, including non-
motorized users. Access: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/download/25286#




Noteworthy Speed Management Practices, FHWA-SA-20-047, August 2020 - This report provides an avenue of information for




BEHAVIOR RELATED
practitioners in that it summarizes eight case studies which highlight noteworthy practices over a range of speed management issues.
The case study strategies include Strategic Speed Management Program; Self-Enforcing Roadways; Setting Credible Speed Limits; High
Visibility Enforcement; Successful Strategies for Adoption of Safety Cameras; Targeted Reporting of Speeding-Related Crashes; Consistent
Speed Limit for Vulnerable Road Users; and Network Approach to Setting Speed Limits. Access: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/
ref_mats/fhwasa20047/fhwasa20047.pdf

High Visibility Enforcement (HVE) Toolkit, NHTSA - Provides information on types of enforcement (Saturation Patrol, Wave, Integrated
Enforcement, and Multi-Jurisdictional Enforcement), placement of HVE, visibility elements, training and measuring effectiveness. Also
provides information on publicity methods for HVE, implementation and resources on the website. In addition, NHTSA provides template
materials (press releases, talking points, posters, etc.), for the following individual program areas: Impaired Driving; Occupant Protection;
Speed/Aggressive Driving; and Distracted Driving. Access: https://www.nhtsa.gov/enforcement-justice-services/high-visibility-
enforcement-hve-toolkit




Page 138
Taking Action




Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations, FHWA-SA-17-072, July 2018 - This document provides




PEDESTRIANS & BICYCLISTS
guidance to agencies, including best practices for each step involved in selecting countermeasures. By focusing on uncontrolled crossing
locations, agencies can address a significant national safety problem and improve quality of life for pedestrians of all ages and abilities.
Agencies may use this guide to develop a customized policy or to supplement existing local decision-making guidelines. This guide
provides a Countermeasure Selection Table for uncontrolled intersections based on posted speed limit, ADT and roadway configuration.
This guide also provides a table listing the safety issues addressed by countermeasure type. Access: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/
ped_bike/step/docs/STEP_Guide_for_Improving_Ped_Safety_at_Unsig_Loc_3-2018_07_17-508compliant.pdf

Improving Intersections for Pedestrians and Bicyclists Informational Guide, FHWA-SA-22-017, April 2022 - The purpose of this
guide is to inform the state of the practice concerning intersection planning and design to implement solutions that help achieve the goal
for zero fatalities and serious injuries while improving mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians. The primary intersection types discussed
in this guide include traditional signalized intersections, roundabouts, Median U-Turn (MUT) intersections, Reduced Crossing U-Turn
(RCUT) intersections, Quadrant Roadway (QR) intersections, Displaced Left Turn (DLT) intersections, and Diverging Diamond Interchanges
(DDI). This guide also includes discussion about stop-controlled and uncontrolled intersection crossings for bicyclists and pedestrians.
This guide illustrates integration of bikeways and pedestrian pathways at and across traditional and alternative intersections, describes
countermeasures applicable to pedestrian and bicyclist crossings at intersections, and summarizes the application of intersection
analysis methods for the safety and mobility of pedestrians and bicyclists. Access: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/about/
fhwasa22017.pdf




Unsignalized Intersection Improvement Guide (UIIG) Toolkit, ITE, 2015 - The purpose of the UIIG is to assist and guide users




INTERSECTIONS
through the process of evaluating their unsignalized intersections and identifying opportunities to enhance their safety and operational
performance. The contents of the UIIG are presented under two sections: Information and Toolkit. The Information section provides
important background material related to the types, users, common problems and treatments, and general considerations associated with
unsignalized intersections. The Toolkit provides several resources to assist the user in: (1) collecting data on the existing conditions and
characteristics of the intersection; and (2) identifying potential treatments that may improve the safety and mobility at the intersection.
Access: https://toolkits.ite.org/uiig/

Manual on Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections to Transit, FTA-FL-26-7012-00, July 2017 - Provides a compendium of best practices
to help transportation professionals improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and access to transit, including information on evaluating,
planning for, and implementing improvements to pedestrian and bicycle access to transit. In addition to covering key concepts such as
access sheds, connected networks, and station area comfort, safety, and legibility, the manual covers needs specific to pedestrians, such
as complete sidewalks and safe, convenient crossings, and to bicyclists, such as bicycle parking and on-transit accommodations. Access:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/64496/ftareportno0111.pdf




Page 139
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022




Intersection Proven Safety Countermeasure Technical Summary: Corridor Access Management, FHWA-SA-15-005, Updated



SEGMENTS
July 2020 - This Technical Summary was prepared to assist transportation professionals with decisions pertaining to Corridor Access
Management, including planning, permitting, design, selection, and implementation. This document provides a substantive overview
of important access-related issues: safety performance (i.e. crashes), effects on pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and community and
business economic impacts. Access: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/cam/fhwasa15005.pdf

Web-Based Training for FHWA Roadway Lighting Workshop Module 3: Street and Roadway Lighting Design, FHWA-SA-18-035,
May 2018 - Participant workbook for Web-Based Training for FHWA Roadway Lighting Workshop, Module 3: Street and Roadway Lighting
Design. Module 3 covers lighting design criteria, calculations, field measurements, and light pollution. Other modules include Module 1:
Roadway Lighting Design Overview, Module 2: Lighting Hardware and Light Source Considerations for Roadway Lighting, and Module
4: Other Roadway Lighting Topics. Access: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/night_visib/roadway_lighting_workshop/
Module3Workbook_021219.pdf




Page 140
Taking Action




THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK




Page 141
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022




A PATH
CHAPTER 6




FORWARD
Page 142
A Path Forward




STRATEGY PRIORITIZATION
Recognizing resources are finite and that some actions will have a more immediate impact reducing
traffic fatalities and improving safety, the strategies presented in the previous section were prioritized
based on the following factors:


Effectiveness: Strategies that have been proven to have a higher impact on reducing serious and fatal crashes are
prioritized higher in this plan. Resources used to quantify strategy effectiveness include: the Crash
Modification Factors Clearinghouse, FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures, and the National Highway
Traffic Safety Association. General Strategies were not applicable and not included in this evaluation.
Application: Strategies that will be applied to the HIN are prioritized higher in this plan, with location specific,
systemic, or programmatic strategies prioritized secondarily.
Cost: Annual average cost of implementation is an additional factor for strategy prioritization in this plan.


Using these factors, the chart below illustrates each strategy’s composite effectiveness and
application score distributed by annual average cost. Each strategy serves a purpose towards the
ultimate vision of eliminating fatalities and serious injuries. Strategies closest to the lower right corner are
anticipated to have the highest benefit-cost ratio.
PB.01B PB.02A IT.02B
High (>$5M)
SG.01B



Medium-High BH.02A IT.01B SG.02B IT.02A SG.02A

($1M-$5M)


IT.02C IT.03D BH.02C BH.03A
Medium
($500k-$1M)

Cost Level
BH.01B SG.03A
PB.01A
PB.03E PB.03A SG.03B BH.01A
Medium-Low BH.01D IT.03A
($100k-$500k)
IT.03B IT.03E BH.02B


IT.03C IT.01A BH.01C PB.02B
Low (<$100k)

SG.01A PB.02C




0 20 40 60 80 100

Effectiveness & Application Score

Legend
BH: Behavior Related PB: Pedestrians & Bicyclist IT: Intersections SG: Segments



Page 143
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022



As the City moves forward with the goal and reducing fatal and serious injury on City streets, an
implementation plan was developed to identify the when, where, and how projects will be implemented.
This section develops a framework for moving the objectives and strategies to actionable projects,
including further details on work phases and timeline. This implementation plan is divided into three
categories based on timing, sequence, and location: Foundational Change, Systemic Implementation, &
Addressing the HIN. Strategies may apply to one or more of these categories.


FOUNDATIONAL CHANGE
Foundational change strategies include internal initiatives and process improvements to support the
City’s goals of becoming a Vision Zero community, improving crash data collection and evaluation,
and creating a culture of roadway safety within the City. Foundational change strategies will serve as
the building blocks to support implementation of the other strategies within the plan and, as such, are
excluded from the previous strategy prioritization effort. Most of these strategies will be substantially
complete with one-time efforts to establish policies, procedures, or framework needed to execute
other strategies. Each foundational change strategy is provided in the following table along with a
justification statement, the process to complete the strategy, and proposed timeline for completion.




Page 144
A Path Forward



FOUNDATIONAL CHANGE STRATEGIES
GN.01A - CREATE A CITY OF PHOENIX INTER-DEPARTMENTAL VISION ZERO TASK FORCE

Justification Process Phases Timeline
Developing an inter-departmental task force is -PHX RSAP Project Team to develop Vision Zero Q4 2022 - Executive Task Force begins quarterly
a foundational element of a Vision Zero Plan. A Task Force draft framework, including the group’s meetings; RSAP Implementation Team begins
diverse, committed team is needed to lead in the goals, growth phases, coordination schedule, & monthly meetings
goal of reducing & eliminating serious injury & fatal stakeholder roles/functions. Q2 2023 - Establishment of the Community Advisory
crashes, as many factors contribute to crash safety. -PHX leadership team to finalize framework Committee with quarterly meeting cadence
The success of the program will be dependent on -Designation of Task Force Chair/Department
involvement from internal departments & external -Engagement with department supervisors for
stakeholders, with different knowledge, experience, commitment & key team members.
& roles, but the same shared goal of improving -Tier 1: Establish Executive Task Force
safety. -Tier 2: Establish RSAP Implementation Team
-Tier 3: Establish Community Advisory Committee
GN.01B - CREATE AN ANNUAL VISION ZERO STATUS REPORT INCLUDING UPDATED CRASH STATISTICS FROM THE CRASH DASHBOARD, HIGH INJURY
NETWORK (HIN), & STATUS OF PERFORMANCE MEASURE TARGETS.
Justification Process Phases Timeline
The annual Vision Zero Status Report will provide -Development of a crash dashboard with enhanced Q4 2022 - Development of crash dashboard,
benchmarking information on the City’s progress in evaluation features. HIN, performance measure targets, status report
reaching safety goals. The status report is intended -Development of a high injury network (HIN). template
to keep focus on the short term & long term goals, -Development of performance measure targets. Q4: Annual - Data analysis for each status report
provide information to the public, Council, & other -Development of a status report template for all Q2: Annual - Status reports complete
stakeholders, review effectiveness of strategies performance measure targets.
implemented, & inform future implementation -Complete a Vision Zero Status Report once
decisions. annually, reporting on the current status of all
performance measure targets.
-Update the HIN every three years based on the
most recent five years of crash data.

GN.02A - CONTINUE TO ANALYZE SAFETY DATA ANNUALLY TO IDENTIFY HIGH SEVERITY CRASH AREAS AND IMPLEMENT COUNTERMEASURES AT
PRIORITIZED LOCATIONS.
Justification Process Phases Timeline
The City currently conducts an annual safety review -Integrate a more frequent data transfer (weekly/ Q1 2023 - Integration of automated crash data
of trends Citywide, & uses supporting data to inform monthly) for the Streets Department to obtain new transfer & GIS elements
project-specific analyses throughout the year. This crash data for analysis. Q3 2023 - Development of evaluation features
strategy aims to develop more dynamic evaluation -Collaborate to identify the network screening
capabilities to better understand hot spot areas features desired.
with particular crash types. The network screening -Integrate GIS elements with crash data (equity,
improvements could be developed to rank locations traffic signals, HAWKs, unsignalized intersections,
based on crash frequency, crash severity, & user street lighting, transit corridors, etc.).
type. Potential evaluations include: top signalized -Develop features within the crash dashboard to
intersections by left-turn & angle crashes, top quickly query data.
unsignalized intersections by left-turn & angle
crashes, top segments by pedestrian crashes, top
intersections by percent of nighttime collisions, top
segments by percent of nighttime collisions, most
crashes within a set radius of a school, top locations
by children & elderly pedestrian crashes, top
locations involving transit corridors, & consideration
of equity factors.


Page 145
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022



FOUNDATIONAL CHANGE STRATEGIES (CONT.)
GN.02B - IMPROVE CRASH DATA SHARING BETWEEN THE STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, POLICE DEPARTMENT, & ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION.
Justification Process Phases Timeline
Crash data is initially collected & reviewed by -Method A: ADOT Data Transfer Q1 2023 - Establish crash data connection(s)
Phoenix PD, reported to ADOT, reviewed/scrubbed •Establish an FTP to share crash data directly from Q3 2023 - Integrate fully within dashboard
through ADOT, & shared back to Phoenix Streets ADOT, on a more frequent basis (weekly or monthly).
on an annual basis for crash data analysis. •Develop connections to integrate the data format
Improvements to the crash data sharing process are directly into the existing crash data dashboard.
intended to reduce the data latency between the -Method B: Phoenix PD Data Transfer
date of a crash & the date in which it is available for •Establish an FTP to share crash data directly
review by Phoenix Streets. between departments, from PHX PD to Streets, on a
more frequent basis (weekly or monthly).
•Develop connections to integrate the data format
directly into the existing crash data dashboard.

GN.02C - CONTINUE TO CONDUCT ROAD SAFETY AUDITS (RSA), FOCUSING ON THE HIN, TO IDENTIFY APPROPRIATE COUNTERMEASURES; DEVELOP &
IMPLEMENT RECOMMENDED COUNTERMEASURES THROUGH PROJECTS AT THESE LOCATIONS.
Justification Process Phases Timeline
The formal RSA program is funded by the Maricopa -Continue to submit applications for the MAG Road Continuous
Association of Governments (MAG), based on Safety Assessment Program to conduct RSAs at
the intersections ranking highest in safety need. intersections, along corridors, & in conjunction with
The MAG list of Top 100 intersections, published preliminary design of projects on the HIN.
every few years, typically includes a significant -Identify candidate locations by crosschecking the
number of locations within Phoenix. When Phoenix MAG Top 100 list with the City’s HIN & excluding any
intersections are selected for study, continue past RSA locations or recently completed safety
support & involvement from Phoenix staff to improvement projects.
provide background information on existing -Designate one staff position within Traffic Services
issues, participate in discussion of proposed to identify & pursue funding sources (outside
recommendations, & develop a response to each of CIP funds) to support safety improvement
proposed recommendation. implementation.


GN.02D - ENHANCE AND STREAMLINE THE PROCESS TO IMPLEMENT RSA RECOMMENDATIONS.

Justification Process Phases Timeline
RSAs generate a list of recommendations to -Designate one staff position within Traffic Q3 2023 -Create central tracking process to
improve safety at an intersection, ranging from Services to manage the documentation of RSA program safety
signing & marking, signal operation & phasing, recommendations (excluding maintenance items)
ADA considerations, access management, & minor & obtain feedback from internal staff and other
maintenance items. The improvement efforts are departments (Transit, PD, etc.) to program the
carried out by various teams within the City (signals, improvements.
sign shop, police, fire, maintenance, transit, etc.) -Improve collaboration between departments on
& tracking the status of ongoing improvements is RSA recommendations that are not led by Streets
currently challenging. (Transit, PD, etc.)
-Following implementation of safety improvements,
conduct before & after evaluations to track the
changes/benefits of the improvements. The
evaluation is recommended to include 3 years of
data before & after the improvements.




Page 146
A Path Forward



FOUNDATIONAL CHANGE STRATEGIES (CONT.)
GN.03A - INCORPORATE ANALYSIS OF CRASH HISTORY & COUNTERMEASURES SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS FOR CITY OF PHOENIX CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROJECTS & PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Justification Process Phases Timeline
Evaluation of crash data & safety trends is an -Review CIP program types to identify which should Continuous - Begin in 2023
important aspect as the City plans for & implements require crash evaluation in planning process, &
projects. A historical crash review & associated which may be excluded.
countermeasure identification is recommended -City management engagement to facilitate
to be added as a required element in CIP project coordination between Streets & other involved
development & in the private development review departments for CIP process modifications.
process. -Streets to develop proposed criteria for crash data
evaluation (number of years, intersection radius,
segment bounds, reporting summaries).
-Create process flow & assign responsibility to staff
person who will query crashes using dashboard or
provide methodology for submitter to be able to pull
key crash information.

GN.03B - MAKE THE ROAD SAFETY CRASH DASHBOARD AVAILABLE TO CITY STAFF TO ACCESS FOR ANALYSIS & DEVELOPMENT OF COUNTERMEASURES
INTO CITY PRACTICES.
Justification Process Phases Timeline
Safety reviews help the City make fiscally -Establish an FTP to share crash data directly from Q1 2023 - Establish crash data connection(s)
responsible decisions & to improve the safety for ADOT, on a more frequent basis (weekly or monthly). Q3 2023 - Integrate crash data scrubbing elements
all roadway users. The objective of the road safety -Broaden geographical analysis of crash data to Q4 2024 - Improve timeframe for submitting fatal
crash dashboard is to extract useful information include crashes near jurisdictional boundaries with crash records to ADOT
from centrally stored safety data & display the other agencies.
information using graphs, tables, maps & other -Develop a crash dashboard that allows crash data
visualizations so that staff across departments to be more easily accessible & provide enhanced
(e.g. project-specific stakeholders) can make analytics.
informed decisions. Providing department access -Improve investigation & procedural requirements
to this tool will reduce the risk of schedule delays to shorten time from when a fatal or serious injury
when incorporating safety reviews in projects & motor vehicle crash occurs & when the records are
encourage involvement in safety review in other submitted to ADOT.
departments, outside of Streets.

GN.03C - INCORPORATE A VISION ZERO COMPONENT INTO REQUIRED DRIVER TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR CITY OF PHOENIX EMPLOYEES (INCLUDING
MUNICIPAL COURTS) & CONTRACTORS.
Justification Process Phases Timeline
The City of Phoenix has more than 14,000 -Work with appropriate team member to add a Q3 2023 - Add Vision Zero component for internal
employees working across 35 departments. Both Vision Zero component to required employee staff training & expand
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration on-boarding & annual training. Expand this training Q2 2023 - Publish Vision Zero Training
(OSHA) & the National Highway Traffic to the Municipal Courts.
Administration (NHTSA), agree that by implementing -Create & publish a series of webinars or videos to
an effective program of corporate driver training, provide Vision Zero training specific to the City of
the number of crashes your employees might be Phoenix.
involved in will be dramatically lowered. Instilling & -Ask vendors registered with ProcurePHX to
reinforcing Vision Zero safe driving practices for city self-certify that key personnel have participated in
staff & contractors reduces the likelihood that they Phoenix’s Vision Zero Training within the past three
contribute to serious & fatal accidents. years.




Page 147
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022



FOUNDATIONAL CHANGE STRATEGIES (CONT.)
GN.03D - DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN A LIST OF PRIORITIZED PLANNING, PRE-DESIGN, DESIGN, & CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN PURSUIT OF LOCAL, STATE,
FEDERAL, & PRIVATE GRANT FUNDING AS APPROPRIATE.
Justification Process Phases Timeline
Maintaining a list of prioritized projects will -The projects listed in the “Addressing the HIN” Continuous
streamline application processes as new funding section of this chapter will serve as the initial list of
opportunities become available. Maintaining the prioritized projects.
prioritized list will reduce delay and deliberation -As the HIN is updated in the future, new locations
during the grant application process, and will will be identified and prioritized based on the
allow City staff to focus time into crafting the best number of historical KSI crashes or predicted injury
applications possible to be selected for funding. crashes.




GN.03E - INCORPORATE USE OF USLIMITS2, A FREE, WEB-BASED TOOL, TO ASSESS & ESTABLISH SPEED LIMITS FOR SPECIFIC SEGMENTS OF ROADWAY
WITH HIGH PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLIST ACTIVITY, ON-STREET PARKING, MORE THAN 30 DRIVEWAYS PER MILE, OR ABOVE AVERAGE CRASH HISTORY.
USLIMITS2 PRODUCES AN UNBIASED AND OBJECTIVE SUGGESTED SPEED LIMIT VALUE BASED ON 50TH AND 85TH PERCENTILE SPEEDS, TRAFFIC
VOLUMES, ROADWAY TYPE, ROADWAY SETTING, NUMBER OF ACCESS POINTS, CRASH HISTORY, & PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLIST ACTIVITY
Justification Process Phases Timeline
The City of Phoenix has authority per ARS 28-703 -Use USLIMITS2 at: Q4 2022 - Begin
to set appropriate speed limits on the basis of https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/uslimits/
an engineering & traffic investigation. There is -Document the factors or thresholds that constitute
broad consensus among global roadway safety “high pedestrian/bicyclist activity” beyond the
experts that speed control is one of the most examples provided in the user guide.
critical methods to reduce the significant risks -Determine the average crash rate per 100 million
drivers impose on others—especially vulnerable vehicle miles for different types of roads in the City
road users—and on themselves. Addressing speed of Phoenix to replace the national Highway Safety
is fundamental to the Safe System Approach for Information System (HSIS) rates.
reducing fatalities and serious injuries. -Determine the average injury & fatal rates for
different types of roads in the City of Phoenix to
replace the national HSIS rates.


PB.02B - DEVELOP A BEST PRACTICE APPROACH FOR PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS TO IMPROVE SAFETY IN A CONTEXT SENSITIVE MANNER.

Justification Process Phases Timeline
Judgment on the application of a marked crosswalk -Establish process to standardize all uncontrolled Q4 2022 - Establish new crossing warrant criteria
should be based on multiple factors, including marked crosswalk locations. Q4 2023 - Complete standardization process for
land uses, present & future demand, pedestrian -Set up annual reviews of marked crosswalk uncontrolled locations; Establish annual review
compliance, speed, safety, and crash history. locations for maintenance purposes. cadence of crosswalk locations
Volumes alone are not enough to determine -Develop & implement warrant criteria for when to
whether or not a particular device should be used. designate a new crossing location.
The presence of a marked crosswalk does not
in & of itself render a street safe. Based on their
surrounding context, speed, & overall roadway
width, marked crosswalks often require additional
safety measures such as safety islands, signals, or
traffic calming.



Page 148
A Path Forward



FOUNDATIONAL CHANGE STRATEGIES (CONT.)
PB.02C - DEVELOP A CHECKLIST OR TOOLKIT TO IMPROVE SAFETY FOR PEDESTRIANS & BICYCLISTS THROUGH SMART DESIGN CHOICES FOR ALL TO BE
USED IN DESIGNING CITY OF PHOENIX CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS & PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.
Justification Process Phases Timeline
Checklists can help professionals identify roadway -Develop a fillable form PDF checklist that guides Q4 2023 - Implement for CIP Program
crash risk early on in the lifespan of a project. the user in design choices that are likely to improve Q2 2024 - Implement for private development
Early identification of issues allows time for safety safety for pedestrians & bicyclists. Reference projects
countermeasures to be identified, evaluated, & existing toolkits when available.
budgeted for during final design & construction. -Develop internal & external processes for use of
Checklists offer a systematic procedure that the checklist.
empowers staff & other professionals to play a
role in road safety without extensive training or
education in road safety principles. Checklists may
be complemented by design toolkits, which provide
further guidance for the application of specific
countermeasures given site-specific conditions.




Page 149
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022




SYSTEMIC IMPLEMENTATION
Expanding beyond the HIN, systemic implementation takes a broader view and addresses risk across
the City’s entire roadway system. A systemic safety approach involves continuous evaluation,
engineering, enforcement, and education initiatives to allocate resources to proactively address safety
concerns. Systemic actions build upon resources and programs the City already has and may have
an annual implementation goal to track progress. The strategies identified in this plan target the City’s
high risk crash types and should be widely implemented as resources allow. Most of these strategies
will be continually implemented through annual programs. The following sections are organized by 4
of the 5E’s and recommend actions to start in the first year of plan implementation. The 5th E, Equity,
is incorporated for each strategy during project development and prioritization, and thus, does not
have a dedicated table.




Page 150
A Path Forward




SYSTEMIC EVALUATION

Quality data is the foundation for making important decisions regarding the design, operation, and safety of roadways. The
combination of analyzing crash, roadway and traffic data leads to more precise and prioritized safety decisions. Safety analysis
helps the City make decisions that are fiscally responsible and to improve the safety of the roadway for all users. Phoenix has
been conducting safety analysis for decades to better identify safety problems and prescribe solutions to inform the CIP and
respond to citizen feedback and input from elected officials. The City receives 50 to 70 requests for traffic signals and 40 to 50
requests for signalized mid-block pedestrian crossings (HAWKs) each year. To advance the City’s ability to incorporate explicit,
quantitative consideration of safety into planning and project development decision making, several safety enhancements
and process changes will be made to: modernize and manage existing safety analysis tools in a centralized database and
software system, implement city-wide network screening to identify candidate locations, update evaluation and prioritization
methodologies, implement a centralized tracking system for traffic and safety study requests, incorporate available safety
analysis tools at the project level including USLIMITS2 and IHSDM, shorten the installation time for safety countermeasures, and
record outcome data to measure progress over time.

FIRST YEAR EVALUATION ACTIONS:

PB.02A: CONTINUE TO ANALYZE SAFETY DATA ANNUALLY TO IDENTIFY HIGH SEVERITY CRASH AREAS & IMPLEMENT COUNTERMEASURES
AT PRIORITIZED LOCATIONS.
• Re-instate collection of traffic volumes city-wide on arterials and major collectors at least once every three years.
• Modernize existing safety analysis tools in a centralized database and software system. (UNDERWAY)

GN.02B: IMPROVE CRASH DATA SHARING BETWEEN THE STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, POLICE DEPARTMENT, & ARIZONA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. (UNDERWAY)

GN.03B: MAKE THE ROAD SAFETY CRASH DASHBOARD AVAILABLE TO CITY STAFF TO ACCESS FOR ANALYSIS & DEVELOPMENT OF
COUNTERMEASURES INTO CITY PRACTICES. (UNDERWAY)

GN.03E: INCORPORATE USE OF USLIMITS2, A FREE, WEB-BASED TOOL, TO ASSESS AND ESTABLISH SPEED LIMITS FOR SPECIFIC SEGMENTS
OF ROADWAY WITH HIGH PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLIST ACTIVITY, ON-STREET PARKING, MORE THAN 30 DRIVEWAYS PER MILE, OR
ABOVE AVERAGE CRASH HISTORY.

PB.03A: ANALYZE THE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK TO IDENTIFY LOCATIONS THAT HAVE THE GREATEST NUMBER OF RISK-FACTORS
(WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLIST CRASHES), & THEN IDENTIFY COUNTERMEASURE IMPROVEMENTS.

2-5 YEAR EVALUATION ACTIONS:

BH.02C: CONTINUE TO EVALUATE & IMPLEMENT SPEED MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES RELATED TO ROADWAY DESIGN, ROADWAY SURFACE,
TRAFFIC CONTROL, COMMUNITY EDUCATION, AND SPEED ENFORCEMENT. (UNDERWAY)


PB.01B: IMPLEMENT SCHOOL ZONE SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES FOR SCHOOL CROSSINGS OF COLLECTOR ROADS. DEVELOP SCHOOL
TYPOLOGIES FOR PRIORITIZATION.

IT.03B: DEVELOP A GEOSPATIAL NETWORK SCREENING PROCESS, THAT INCLUDES THE FREQUENCY & SEVERITY OF CRASHES, FOR
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS TO IDENTIFY PRIORITY LOCATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS.


Page 151
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022




SYSTEMIC ENGINEERING

Engineering strategies address roadway safety through roadway design, traffic engineering, maintenance, operations, and
planning. Certain strategies are better suited for widespread implementation across the City to proactively address crash risk or
to provide consistency and equitability. Additionally, some engineering strategies are currently being targeted for location-based
implementation on the HIN because there are limited resources to allocate. In future years, as those locations are addressed and
additional funding may become available, the strategies identified in this plan will continue to merit widespread implementation
to accelerate the achievement of safety goals. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) in the Street Transportation Department
includes a comprehensive pavement maintenance program, improvements to existing streets for mobility and safety issues,
technology upgrades to signals, building new street and drainage infrastructure, expanding roadways, and much more. The
2020-2025 five-year program will provide over $750 million in improvements to the City’s infrastructure. As these CIP projects
are implemented, they should be viewed through a safety lens to determine applicable road safety strategies to incorporate.

FIRST YEAR ENGINEERING ACTIONS:

PB.02A: CONTINUE CONSTRUCTING MIDBLOCK CROSSINGS AT PRIORITY ARTERIAL ROAD LOCATIONS THAT INCLUDE: HAWKS, SIGNING,
MARKINGS, & LIGHTING TO PROVIDE A SAFE PLACE FOR PEOPLE WALKING & BICYCLING TO CROSS.
EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 95; 20 PER YEAR AT $440K EACH.

PB.01A: DEVELOP SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLANS FOR PUBLIC, PRIVATE, & CHARTER ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE, & HIGH SCHOOLS WITH
CROSSINGS OF ARTERIAL ROADS.
EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 70; 20 STUDIES OR INSTALLATIONS PER YEAR AT $40K EACH.

IT.03B: CONTINUE EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL (LPI) AT INTERSECTIONS WITH GREATEST
CRASH RISK OF PEDESTRIAN-MOTOR VEHICLE COLLISIONS.
EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 55; INSTALL AT 30 LOCATIONS PER YEAR, ASSUME 10 INVOLVE NEW CONTROLLERS ($35K
EACH) AND 20 CAN USE EXISTING EQUIPMENT ($1K).

SG.03A: DEVELOP AN APPROACH TO REVIEW & PRIORITIZE LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS (IMPROVE OR CREATE POSITIVE LIGHTING,
COVERAGE, BRIGHTNESS, ETC.) AT UNCONTROLLED, MARKED MIDBLOCK CROSSINGS.
EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 55; 10 LOCATIONS PER YEAR (20 NEW STREETLIGHTS) AT $20K EACH.

SG.03B: FOR ARTERIAL & MAJOR COLLECTOR STREETS WITH SINGLE SIDED LIGHTING, ADD THE OTHER SIDE OF LIGHTING IN COORDINATION
WITH CURRENT CITY LIGHTING STANDARDS.
EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 53; 2 MILES OF SINGLE SIDED LIGHTING PER YEAR AT $585K PER MILE.

PB.03E: ESTABLISH NATURAL OR STRUCTURAL SHADE IN PEDESTRIAN REFUGE & WAITING AREAS.
EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 15; SHADE INSTALLATION AT 60 TRANSIT STOPS PER YEAR AT $8K EACH.

IT.02B: CONTINUE EFFORTS TO IDENTIFY EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNALS WITH LEGACY EQUIPMENT INCLUDING LIGHTING LEVEL, &
RECONSTRUCT THEM TO CURRENT STANDARDS. (UNDERWAY) EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 100 ; REBUILD 15 HIN
INTERSECTIONS PER YEAR AT $1M EACH.

IT.03D: CONTINUE TO EVALUATE & IMPLEMENT ITS IMPROVEMENTS TO PROVIDE GREATER SIGNAL EFFICIENCY, COORDINATION,
COMMUNICATION, INCLUDING PILOTING & EVALUATING ADAPTIVE TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROL. (UNDERWAY) EFFECTIVENESS &
APPLICATION SCORE = 30; 18 INTERSECTIONS AT $55K EACH.



Page 152
A Path Forward




2-5 YEAR ENGINEERING ACTIONS:

PB.01B: IMPLEMENT SCHOOL ZONE SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES FOR SCHOOL CROSSINGS OF COLLECTOR ROADS. DEVELOP SCHOOL
TYPOLOGIES FOR PRIORITIZATION. EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 85; IMPLEMENT SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS AT 20
SCHOOLS PER YEAR AT $500K EACH.

IT.01B: FOR PRIORITY UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS THAT DO NOT OR ARE NOT ANTICIPATED TO MEET TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT
CRITERIA, EVALUATE & IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVE COUNTERMEASURES TO IMPROVE TRAFFIC SAFETY. EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION
SCORE = 65; COMPLETE IMPROVEMENTS AT 10 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS PER YEAR AT $150K EACH.

IT.02A: REVIEW SIGHT VISIBILITY AT HIN INTERSECTIONS TO ENSURE ADEQUATE SIGHT DISTANCE FOR LEFT-TURNING VEHICLES. RE-
STRIPE/RECONSTRUCT SINGLE LEFT TURN LANES TO HAVE ZERO OR POSITIVE OFFSETS, WHERE PROTECTED LEFTS ARE NOT
IMPLEMENTED. EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 80; CORRECT LEFT TURN OFFSET ISSUES AT 10 INTERSECTIONS PER YEAR
AT $250K EACH.

IT.02C: INSTALL ADDITIONAL FAR-SIDE BUS BAYS AT PRIORITY LOCATIONS. EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 15; INSTALL 5 FAR-
SIDE BUS BAYS PER YEAR AT $200K EACH.

IT.03A: EVALUATE & MODIFY LEFT-TURN PHASING AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ON THE HIN TO REDUCE CONFLICTING MOVEMENTS.
EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 100; 10 LOCATIONS AT $4.5K WITH SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS OF 150K EACH.

IT.03C: REVIEW PROCEDURE ON ESTABLISHING YELLOW CHANGE & ALL-RED CLEARANCE INTERVALS. EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION
SCORE = 40; STUDY/COMMUNICATIONS EFFORT EST. $150K.

IT.03E: INSTALL EMERGENCY VEHICLE PREEMPTION AT LOCATIONS WITH THE GREATEST NEED. EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE =
60; INSTALL/UPGRADE EVP AT 10 LOCATIONS PER YEAR AT $20K PER INTERSECTION.

SG.01A: UPDATE THE CURRENT ACCESS MANAGEMENT STANDARDS WITHIN THE STREET PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDELINES TO PROVIDE
GUIDANCE FOR ALL ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONS & ALL TYPES OF INTERSECTIONS, INCLUDING UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS &
DRIVEWAYS (FULL ACCESS, PARTIAL ACCESS, LEFT-IN/LEFT-OUT, & RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT). EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE
= 60; STUDY/DESIGN GUIDE EST. $325K.

SG.01B: INSTALL RAISED MEDIANS ON HIN CORRIDORS TO REDUCE CONFLICT POINTS. EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 100;
INSTALL 4 MILES OF RAISED MEDIAN PER YEAR AT $2.25M PER MILE.

SG.02A: IMPROVE STREET LIGHTING LUMINESCENCE & UNIFORMITY ON THE HIN NETWORK AT SEGMENTS WITH THE GREATEST
NIGHTTIME CRASH HISTORY IN COORDINATION WITH THE CURRENT CITY STREET LIGHTING STANDARDS. EFFECTIVENESS &
APPLICATION SCORE = 100; 3 MILES OF SINGLE SIDED LIGHTING PER YEAR AT $585K PER MILE.

SG.02B: REVIEW UNBALANCED LANE UNDIVIDED ARTERIALS (I.E., TWO NORTHBOUND LANES & THREE SOUTHBOUND LANES) FOR
POTENTIAL RECONFIGURATION BASED ON EVALUATION FACTORS SUCH AS CRASH RATE, SPEED, & VOLUME. EFFECTIVENESS &
APPLICATION SCORE = 70; IMPROVE 2 MILES PER YEAR AT $1M PER MILE.




Page 153
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022




SYSTEMIC ENFORCEMENT

The two primary goals of traffic law enforcement are to: promote sustained compliance with traffic laws through deterrence
and prevent risky traffic situations from occurring and thus preventing or reducing the number of motor vehicle crashes. Some
roadway users will ignore traffic laws if they perceive that their actions will not be detected or enforced, even with the potential
of fines, mandatory training (loss of time), and losing licensure. In general, road users obey road rules when they perceive a
substantial risk. Deterrence through enforcement should be: 1) accompanied by widespread publicity, 2) unpredictable and
difficult to avoid, 3) a mix of highly visible and less visible activities, 4) continued over a long period of time, and 5) well
resourced.


A goal of this plan is to further integrate the five E’s (evaluation, engineering, enforcement, education, and equity) into different
City Departments. Collaboration between the Street Transportation Department and Police Department will bolster enforcement
efforts with crash analysis (evaluation) to inform resource allocation and targeted areas for enforcement such as types of
crashes, factors, days of the week, times of the day, and locations.


Law enforcement agencies across the United States are struggling to recruit and hire police officers. It is anticipated to take
multiple years to expand staffing for the Traffic Bureau to achieve greater performance metrics in the area of enforcement. The
current performance metrics align with existing staff levels and may be reviewed and revised in the future.

FIRST YEAR ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS:

BH.01D: PROACTIVE ENFORCEMENT ON THE HIN, WITH EMPHASIS ON RISK FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST
RELATED CRASHES. EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 80

BH.03A: EXPANDED DUI ENFORCEMENT. EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 70

BH.01B: EXPANDED ENFORCEMENT OF SCHOOL ZONE LAWS. EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 55

BH.02A: EXPANDED ENFORCEMENT FOR USER BEHAVIOR ISSUES – SPEEDING, RED-LIGHT RUNNING, DISTRACTED DRIVING, AGGRESSIVE
DRIVING EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 50




Page 154
A Path Forward




SYSTEMIC EDUCATION

The behavior of drivers, pedestrians, motorcyclists, and cyclists is the human factor element in traffic crashes. Traffic safety
education is an integral component in changing behavior and encouraging safety in every trip, whether it is walking, biking,
riding transit, or driving.


Awareness campaigns are important tools of systemic education. The objective of Phoenix’s Vision Zero awareness campaigns
are to educate the public and encourage safe behaviors for all road users specifically targeting change in road user behavior
related to speeding, red-light running, distracted driving, impaired driving and address crashes involving pedestrians and
bicyclists. These campaigns will include:


Organic Grassroots Outreach. Most programs are community-based and involve local, grassroots organizations (i.e., schools,
faith-based, business, service/civic/social, advocacy, public health) and law enforcement agencies, that can help to sustain and
institutionalize the initiative. These potential partners are able to connect to the public as they speak as community members,
supporters and friends to audiences who – as employers, students, parishioners, customers, members, etc. – are naturally
receptive to their messages. Organic campaigns featuring reels, challenges and videos will be created on Facebook, Twitter, and
Instagram and cross shared with school districts, to promote eye-catching statistics and safe road-use tips. Additional outreach
items such as stickers may be developed for distribution.


Paid Media. Messaging will be developed and displayed through multiple channels, including billboards near freeways, and
via social media campaigns on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Statewide TV & radio PSA spots will be developed in English
& Spanish and boosted with YouTube and Google Ads.

FIRST YEAR ACTIONS (EDUCATION):

BH.01C: EXPAND CURRENT EFFORTS FOR STUDENT PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLIST EDUCATION, SAFETY, & AWARENESS EFFORTS, FOCUSING
ON SCHOOLS WITHIN 1/4 MILE OF THE HIN NETWORK. EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 75


BH.02B: DEVELOP ROADWAY SAFETY AWARENESS & EDUCATION CAMPAIGNS FOR PEOPLE DRIVING VEHICLES, IN CONCERT WITH
ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS, TO SPECIFICALLY TARGET CHANGE IN ROAD USER BEHAVIOR RELATED TO SPEEDING, RED-LIGHT
RUNNING, DISTRACTED DRIVING, & AGGRESSIVE DRIVING. EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 70

BH.01A: CONTINUE & ENHANCE PAID AND EARNED MEDIA CAMPAIGNS (ELECTRONIC, PRINT, RADIO, AND BROADCAST) TO PROMOTE
PUBLIC AWARENESS OF PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY. THIS INCLUDES USING NEW & EFFECTIVE METHODS TO REACH
TARGET AUDIENCES. EFFECTIVENESS & APPLICATION SCORE = 60




Page 155
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022




ADDRESSING THE HIN
Projects targeted within the first five years of the Road Safety Action Plan adoption are focused on the
geographic locations within the City with the greatest demonstrated pattern of motor vehicle crashes
resulting in fatalities and serious injuries – the High Injury Network (HIN). Projects implemented on
the HIN will have the highest immediate impact on safety and will be prioritized for funding and
implementation. Locations from the HIN are grouped into three project type categories that identify
the overarching characteristics of improvements: Intersections, Segments, and Composite (Segments
+ Intersections). Several Intersection locations on the HIN have been recently addressed by the City,
and thus have been removed from these lists. To determine which locations should be prioritized, three
factors were applied per project category:


- The amount of KSI crashes at/on the location. Locations were rank ordered by amount of KSI crashes in
that project catagory, then the catagory was divided into thirds: Tier 1, 2, and 3.


- Within each Tier, the locations were prioritized in an area of need determined by the Phoenix RSAP Equity
Analysis. If the location is either fully in, adjacent - one side, or at least one corner (intersections) it is noted
as a ‘yes.’


- Status of location/project. The intent of this information is to help determine what RSAP strategies should
be implemented at these locations. The status of the location/project are RC = recently completed, PC =
partially completed, P = programmed in the upcoming Phoenix Capital Improvement Program (CIP), or F =
future project is needed.

Additionally, key crash characteristics are identified per location providing a snapshot of the factors
and crash types that have occurred at this location from the 5-year crash data (2015-2019). This
will be used to identify RSAP Strategies and other safety countermeasures to develop the context
sensitive solutions to incorporate into the scope of work for each project. RSAP strategies that will
be evaluated for integration into these projects include GN.03E, BH.01D, BH.02A, PB.02A, PB.02B, PB.02C,
PB.03E, IT.01A, IT.01B, IT.02A, IT.02B, IT.03C, IT.03A, IT.03B, IT.03C, IT.03D, IT.03E, SG.01A, SG.01B, SG.02A,
SG.02B, SG.03A, and SG.03B.

Moving from analysis and identifying improvements on the HIN is just the first step in constructing
a project and/or making operational changes. While some quick build options can be done in the
short term, many of these locations require a three-phase project development process that includes
design, right-of-way and utilities, and construction. Depending on the complexity of the location and
type of delivery method, each phase could take 1 to 1.5 years to complete, which leads to a 3 to 4.5
year project completion timeline. All HIN locations ranked by priority are displayed in the following
tables.

Page 156
A Path Forward



HIN INTERSECTIONS
HIN RSAP USDOT
Status: RC,
Location Segment Equity Underserved Key Crash Characteristics
PC, P, F
Tier (1-3) Analysis Community

- 50% Left-Turn (LT) crashes
- 50% nighttime
35th Ave & Glendale Ave 1 Yes Yes P
- 3 ped & 1 bike crashes (40%)
- Fatal crash ped south of crosswalk

- 56% nighttime or dawn/dusk
- 44% peds (3 on west leg)
Mcdowell Rd & 51st Ave 1 Yes Yes - 75% peds at night or dawn/dusk P
- Fatal at night
- Decreasing by year

- 33% peds
- 33% LT crashes
Thomas Rd & 51st Ave 1 Yes Yes - Decreasing by year F
- 66% nighttime or dawn/dusk
- 67% fatals are peds
- Crashes declining by year
- 2 ped & 1 bike crash
16th St & Southern Ave 1 Yes Yes F
- Both ped crashes fatal
- 38% nighttime

- 4 ped crashes & 1 bike crash (63%)
- Both fatals are peds
19th Ave & Peoria Ave 1 Yes Yes F
- 38% LT crashes / 50% other
- 5 nighttime & 1 dawn/dusk (75%)

- 63% LT crashes
75th Ave &
1 Yes Yes - 50% nighttime P
Indian School Rd
- Fatal crash (ped at night)

- 63% < 25 years old
- 50% LT crashes
Broadway Rd & 7th St 1 Yes Yes - 63% nighttime F
- Decreasing by year
- 0 ped/bike crashes
- 50% LT crashes
- 50% nighttime or dawn/dusk
43rd Ave & Peoria Ave 1 No Yes F
- 2 ped &1 bike crash (21%)
- 43% in 2018
- 4 ped and 1 bike crash (45%)
- 54% Nighttime
Union Hills Dr & 19th Ave 1 No Yes - 36% LT crashes F
- Both fatals in 2020
- Both fatals at night
- 30% Nighttime
Cave Creek Rd & Union - 50% LT crashes
1 No Yes F
Hills Dr - 50% ped, bike or not reported
- Highest 2016 & 2020


Page 157
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022



HIN INTERSECTIONS (CONT.)
HIN RSAP USDOT
Status: RC,
Location Segment Equity Underserved Key Crash Characteristics
PC, P, F
Tier (1-3) Analysis Community

- Decreasing by year
- 44% LT crashes
51st Ave & Thunderbird Rd 1 No Yes - 44% angle crashes F
- 56% at night
- 58% <30 years old

- 56% LT crashes
- 2 peds & 2 bikes (44%)
7th Ave & Bell Rd 1 No Yes - 67% nighttime or dawn/dusk P
- Both peds fatal at night
- 56% in 2017

- Declining by year
- 56% LT crashes
Greenway Pkwy & Cave - 1 ped & 1 Bike (22%)
1 No Yes F
Creek Rd - 44% nighttime
- 67% fatals at night
- 47% <25 years old
- 2 fatal crashes (22%)
- 2 ped crashes & 1 bike crash (33%)
Indian School Rd & 3rd St 1 No No P
- 56% LT crashes
- 44% in 2019
- 43% nighttime
- 43% ped crashes
- Fatal crash (ped at night)
16th St & Broadway Rd 2 Yes Yes P
- 28% angle crashes
- 28% LT crashes
- 59% < age 30
- 57% nighttime
- 1 ped crash (fatal & nighttime)
19th Ave & Southern Ave 2 Yes Yes - 73% <30 years old P
- 28% LT crash
- 28% rear end crash
- 43% LT crashes
- 29% angle crashes
75th Ave & Thomas Rd 2 Yes Yes P
- 57% nighttime
- Fatal crash (ped at night)
- 71% in 2020
- 43% LT crashes
7th St & Cave Creek Rd &
2 Yes Yes - 29% angle crashes F
Dunlap Ave
- 0 nighttime
- 0 ped/bike crashes
- 71% angle crashes
Lower Buckeye Rd & 35th - 57% in 2017
2 Yes Yes P
Ave - 57% nighttime or dawn/dusk
- 0 Ped/bike


Page 158
A Path Forward



HIN INTERSECTIONS (CONT.)
HIN RSAP USDOT
Status: RC,
Location Segment Equity Underserved Key Crash Characteristics
PC, P, F
Tier (1-3) Analysis Community

- 33% Nighttime
19th Ave & Thunderbird Rd 2 Yes Yes - Constant all years F
- 1 ped crash (night)
- 83% peds
- 17% bike
19th Ave and Dunlap Ave 2 Yes Yes - 50% nighttime or dawn/dusk F
- 50% in 2019
- 1 fatal (Bike crash)
- 50% peds
- 83% nighttime
27th Ave & Indian School
2 Yes Yes - 50% in 2016 F
Rd
- Both fatals are ped crashes at night
- 33% angle crashes
- 33% LT crashes
- 50% in 2019
35th Ave & Southern Ave 2 Yes Yes P
- 1 bike crash in 2017
- 1 nighttime crash
- 50% LT crashes
- 67% nighttime
35th Ave & Thunderbird Rd 2 Yes Yes - 1 ped crash F
- 1 fatal in 2020
- 55% <25 years
- 50% fatal
- 67% ped crashes
39th Ave & Southern Ave 2 Yes Yes P
- 83% nighttime
- 50% in 2020
- 86% LT crashes
- Both fatals in 2018
48th St & Chandler Blvd 2 No No - Both fatals LT F
- 1 nighttime/1 unk.
- 2016 to 2018 only

- 57% ped crashes
- Ped crash fatal at night
48th St & Mcdowell Rd 2 No No - 57% nighttime F
- 43% LT crashes
- 61% <30 years old

- 28% ped crashes (both night or dawn/dusk)
Deer Valley Dr & 27th Ave 2 No No - 71% LT F
- 57% night or dawn/dusk

- 50% same Dir SS
- 67% 2018, 33% 2018
27th Ave & Beardsley Rd 2 No No F
- 33% nighttime or dawn/dusk
- 0 ped/bike




Page 159
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022



HIN INTERSECTIONS (CONT.)
HIN RSAP USDOT
Status: RC,
Location Segment Equity Underserved Key Crash Characteristics
PC, P, F
Tier (1-3) Analysis Community

- 67% nighttime
43rd Ave & Van Buren St 3 Yes Yes - 50% LT crashes F
- 1 Bike crash (nighttime)
- 50% LT crashes
- 2 Ped crashes (1 at night)
59th Ave & Mcdowell Rd 3 Yes Yes F
- 50% in 2017
- 1 nighttime crash
- 50% Angle crashes
- 33% LT crashes
67th Ave & Osborn Rd 3 Yes Yes F
- 50% nighttime or dawn/dusk
- 0 Ped/bike crashes
- 50% nighttime (2 in AM)
- Both fatal crashes at night (AM)
83rd Ave & Thomas Rd 3 Yes Yes - 50% LT crashes F
- 83% in 2020
- Ped crash at night
- 1 ped & 1 bike (33%)
- 33% nighttime
Broadway Rd & 35th Ave 3 Yes Yes F
- 67% LT crashes
- 50% in 2018
- 50% angle crashes
- 67% in 2016
Buckeye Rd & 27th Ave 3 Yes Yes - 33% nighttime or dawn/dusk P
- Decreasing by year
- 0 ped/bike crashes
- 50% LT crashes
- Fatal - dawn/dusk
48th St & Baseline Rd 3 No No P
- Crashes increasing
- 0 ped/bike crashes

- 67% LT crashes
51st Ave & Union Hills Dr 3 No No - 50% nighttime P
- 2016 & 2019 worst

- 33% single vehicle
Deer Valley Rd & 23rd Ave 3 No No F
- 57% <30 years old

- 67% LT crashes
- 33% nighttime
Northern Ave & 7th St 3 No Yes F
- 50% in 2017
- 0 ped/bike




Page 160
A Path Forward



HIN INTERSECTIONS (CONT.)
HIN RSAP USDOT
Status: RC,
Location Segment Equity Underserved Key Crash Characteristics
PC, P, F
Tier (1-3) Analysis Community

- 2 peds & 1 bike (33%)
- 67% nighttime
Washington St & 44th St 3 No No F
- 50% angle crashes
- 50% in 2019

- 53% of crashes involve a ped or bicyclist
- Unusually high number of fatal crashes
Thunderbird Rd & 43rd Ave 3 No No - Total crashes have declined from a peak in 2017, but fatal F
crashes have remained constant every year




Page 161
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022



HIN SEGMENTS PROJECTS
HIN RSAP USDOT
Status: RC,
Location Segment Equity Underserved Key Crash Characteristics
PC, P, F
Tier (1-3) Analysis Community

- 8 ped crashes (32% of all crashes) accounted for 4 fatalities
(57%). All but 1 ped crash were within 300' of a signalized
35th Ave Moreland
1 Yes Yes intersection P
to Van Buren
- 1 bicyclist crash accounted for an additional fatality
- Near even mix of daytime and darkness crashes
- 55% peds (2 fatal)
- 1 bike crash (fatal)
7th St: Hatcher Rd
1 Yes Yes - 64% nighttime P
to Mountain View Rd
- 55% in 2017
- 27% fatal

- 57% nighttime or dawn/dusk
- 29% peds
51st Ave: Roosevelt St
1 Yes Yes - 36% in 2018 F
to McDowell Rd
- 29% angle & 21% LT crashes
- 36% in I-10 interchange

- 33% of crashes involved a ped, including 3 of 4 fatals
- Note: Existing PHB at Grand Canal crossing (east of 23rd Ave)
Indian School Rd: 27th Ave
1 Yes Yes was not in place during entire crash analysis period. Installed in PC
to 19th Ave
- 57% of crashes occurred during darkness or dawn/dusk

- 60% nighttime
19th Ave: Hatcher - 60% LT crashes
1 Yes Yes F
to Mountain View Rd. - 20% ped (at night)
- Fatal at Vogel (at night)
- 47% nighttime
27th Ave: Campbell Ave - 40% peds
1 Yes Yes P
to Camelback Rd - 40% fatal
- 47% LT or angle crashes
- 53% of crashes involve a ped or bicyclist
- Unusually high number of fatal crashes
McDowell Rd: 40th St
1 Yes No - Total crashes have declined from a peak in 2017, but fatal PC
to 44th St
crashes have remained constant every year
- Crashes concentrated from 40th to 43rd St

- 42% nighttime
McDowell Rd: 24th St
1 Yes Yes - 33% peds F
to 28th St
- 1 bike
- 71% ped (2 fatal)
Indian School: 7th Street
1 No Yes - 29% fatal (100% at night) P
wto 12th Street
- 86% nighttime

Carefree Hwy: N North
Valley Pkwy to I-17 1 No No Further review needed F
(eastside)



Page 162
A Path Forward



HIN SEGMENTS PROJECTS (CONT.)
HIN RSAP USDOT
Status: RC,
Location Segment Equity Underserved Key Crash Characteristics
PC, P, F
Tier (1-3) Analysis Community

- No nighttime crashes
Union Hills Dr: 27th Ave
1 No No - All crashes of different types F
to I-17
- No ped or bike crashes


- No crashes in 2020
- No ped or bike crashes
Thunderbird Rd: 30th Ave
1 No Yes - Most crashes (67%) have left-turn collision manner F
to 26th Ave
- Equal mix of daytime and dark crashes
- Most common crash location: traffic signal at 2900 W


- 40% peds
43rd Ave: Thomas - 70% nighttime
2 Yes Yes RC, P
to Indian School - 40% in 2016
- 20% fatal (peds at Pinchot/Verde)
- 60% nighttime or Dawn/Dusk
43rd Ave: McDowell
2 Yes Yes - 40% ped (75% fatal) P, F
to Encanto
- 60% fatal

- 33% fatal
7th Ave: Buckeye Rd - 67% peds
2 Yes Yes PC
to Watkins St - 67% nighttime or dawn/dusk
- 42% in 2017

- 38% single vehicle
19th Ave: Wood Dr. - 50% in 2017
2 Yes Yes F
to Cactus Rd. - 38% at night
- 1 ped (fatal/night)


- Decreasing over the years
19th Ave: Glenrosa - 33% nighttime
2 Yes Yes RC
to Campbell Ave - 33% ped
- 50% LT crashes

- 67% nighttime or dawn/dusk
- 33% ped (100% nighttime)
24th St: Roosevelt
2 Yes Yes - 33% bikes (1 night & 1 dawn/dusk) P
to McDowell
- 33% angle crashes
- 50% at Loop 202 interchange

- 45% fatal
- 100% nighttime
27th Ave: Bethany Home Rd
2 Yes Yes - 64% peds P
to Maryland Ave
- 9% bikes
- 45% in 2017




Page 163
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022



HIN SEGMENTS PROJECTS (CONT.)
HIN RSAP USDOT
Status: RC,
Location Segment Equity Underserved Key Crash Characteristics
PC, P, F
Tier (1-3) Analysis Community

- 57% ped (100% fatal)
Thomas: 28th Street to 32nd
2 No Yes - 57% fatal P
Street
- 71% nighttime
- 40% fatal
Bell Rd: 20th St to Cave - 20% nighttime
2 No Yes P, F
Creek - 30% peds (100% fatal)
- 50% angle crashes

- Crashes only shown in 2017 and 2018
- No collision manner or first harmful event that are in common
7th Ave: Glenrosa to Indian among any crashes.
2 No No PC
School - No two crashes at the same location
- Note: Existing PHB at Glenrosa
- Note: Existing reversible lane precludes raised median

- 24% fatal (LT crashes)
- 38% nighttime of dawn/dusk
Bell Rd: 32nd St to 34th Way 2 No Yes - 38% LT crashes F
- 1 ped crash
- 2 per year
- 50% angle crashes
Greenway Rd: 32nd St to
2 No Yes - 1 ped crash (fatal/night) F
34th St
- 1 bike crash
- No crashes in 2019 or 2020.
- Most crashes (82%) involve either angle or left-turn
7th St: Bell Rd to Grovers
2 No Yes - Mix of daylight and darkness crashes PC
Ave
- Fewer ped crashes (9%) than most segments. However, the
one ped crash was the segment's only fatality
Maryvale Pkwy: 51st Ave to - 1 LT crash
3 Yes Yes P
N. Maryvale Pkwy - Dawn/Dusk
- 33% of crashes involve a ped or bicyclist. Both fatal crashes
involve a ped
McDowell Rd: 32nd St to
3 Yes No - 56% of crashes at dark or dawn/dusk PC
36th St
- No crashes in 2016 or 2019
- Note: Existing PHB at 34th St

Thomas Rd: 63rd Ave to -33% peds (2 fatal)
3 Yes Yes P, F
67th Ave -33% nighttime

-75% ped
19th Ave: Maryland Ave to
3 Yes Yes -25% bike P
Glendale Ave
-50% nighttime




Page 164
A Path Forward



HIN SEGMENTS PROJECTS (CONT.)
HIN RSAP USDOT
Status: RC,
Location Segment Equity Underserved Key Crash Characteristics
PC, P, F
Tier (1-3) Analysis Community

- 71% nighttime
- 43% single vehicle
59th Ave: Roosevelt to
3 Yes Yes - 43% in 2018 & 43% in 2019 PC
McDowell
- 1 ped crash (night)
- 71% in Freeway interchange

- 27% peds (1 fatal & 2 nighttime)
35th Ave: Northern Ave to
3 Yes Yes - Both fatals at Griswold Rd P
Butler Dr
- 36% nighttime
- 79% nighttime or dawn/dusk
- 67% fatal
Southern Ave: 7th Ave to
3 Yes Yes - 33% peds (1 fatal) P
15th Ave
- 1 bike crash (fatal)
- 44% in 2020

- 44% nighttime
- 33% peds (2 fatal, 3 nighttime)
McDowell: 7th St to 10th St 3 Yes Yes PC, P
- 33% fatal
- Most at west end of corridor

- 13% nighttime
- 25% ped
Bell Rd: 15th Ave to 19th Ave 3 No Yes P, F
- 38% angle, 28% LT crashes
- Fatal at 17th Ave signal

- 4 ped crashes, all during darkness
Indian School: 40th St to - Crashes declining since the high in 2017
3 No No F
44th Street - Other than ped crashes, left-turn crashes are highest frequency
Left-turn crashes are distributed along corridor

- Peds account for more than half of crashes (average 1 per year)
2 of 5 ped crashes occurred at signal.
- No crashes in 2016 or 2020
Indian School: 28th St to
3 No No - Crashes about evenly split between daytime and darkness F
32nd St
- No more than one crash involving any known collision manner
- Note: Existing PHB at 30th St is one of the highest-ped-volume
PHBs in the city

- Most crashes (86%) in daylight
16th Street: Colter St. to - No ped crashes, 1 bike crash
3 No No F
Missouri Ave. - Most common crash type: Angle crashes (43%)
- No crashes in 2020




Page 165
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022



HIN COMPOSITE PROJECTS
HIN RSAP USDOT
Status: RC,
Location Segment Equity Underserved Key Crash Characteristics
PC, P, F
Tier (1-3) Analysis Community

- 71% of segment crashes involved a ped, including both fatal
crashes
Glendale: 19th Ave to 17th - 57% of segment crashes occurred during darkness or dawn/
1 Yes Yes P
Ave dusk
- 71% of intersection crashes involved a ped, including all 3 fatals
- 86% of intersection crashes occurred during darkness
- Segments: 46% of crashes involved a ped or bike, including 5
of 6 fatal crashes
- Two hotspots for segment fatal crashes: 41st to 42nd Ave and
51st to 52nd Ave
- 63% of segment crashes occurred during darkness
McDowell Rd: 55th Ave to - 4 ped crashes, including 2 fatals, occurred within 500' of
1 Yes Yes RC, P
43rd Ave. existing PHB at 41st Ave
- Left-turn and angle crashes account for 60% of intersection
crashes
- 80% of intersection crashes occurred during darkness
- 1 intersection fatal crash was angle type
- 1 intersection ped crash was serious injury
- 57% of segment crashes are single-vehicle, all of these crashes
occurred within 100' of the existing PHB at 4400 W
- 86% of segment crashes at dark or dawn/dusk
Thomas: 45th Ave to 43rd
1 Yes Yes - Both segment ped crashes occurred at 44th Ln, one was the P
Ave
only fatality on the segment
- 67% of intersection crashes occurred in daylight
- Half of intersection crashes involved a ped
- 60% of segment crashes involved a pedestrian or bicyclist.
- 60% of crashes occurred during darkness or dawn/dusk
- Only 13% of intersection crashes involved pedestrians despite
Northern Ave: 21st Ave to
1 Yes Yes the presence of the LRT station just south of the intersection RC, F
19th Ave
- Intersection crashes are an even mix of daytime and nighttime
- Intersection crashes have been consistent over time, never
fewer than 1 or more than 2 KSI crashes per year
- 29% of segment KSI crashes and 33% of fatalities involved a
pedestrian or bicyclist
- 71% of segment crashes occurred during daylight
- Segment crashes peaked in 2020, contrary to COVID crash
Bell Rd: 26th Ave to 17th trends
1 No Yes P, F
Ave. - Peds account for 44% of intersection crashes and 67% of
fatalities
- 67% of intersection crashes occurred during daylight
- Angle and left-turn crashes accounted for 56% of intersection
crashes




Page 166
A Path Forward



HIN COMPOSITE PROJECTS (CONT.)
HIN RSAP USDOT
Status: RC,
Location Segment Equity Underserved Key Crash Characteristics
PC, P, F
Tier (1-3) Analysis Community

- 47% of segment crashes involved a ped, including 3 of 6 fatals
- 53% of segment crashes occurred at dark or dawn/dusk
- Segment crashes did not decline in 2020 as occurred in much
of the rest of the city
Indian School Rd: 83rd Ave
2 Yes Yes - Half of intersection crashes involved a ped, including 1 of 2 P
to 67th Ave
fatals
- Half of intersection crashes occurred during darkness or dawn/
dusk
- No intersection crashes in 2019 or 2020
- Pedestrians and bicyclists accounted for 33% of segment
crashes and 40% of fatalities
- 46% of segment crashes occurred during daylight.
- Both segment and intersection crashes peaked in 2020,
contrary to COVID crash trends
- Left-turn and angle crashes were most common in the
Indian School: 59th Ave to segments, accounting for 48% of crashes
2 Yes Yes P
27th Ave - No ped or bike segment crashes occurred west of 47th Ave.
- Pedestrians were involved in 16% of intersection crashes and
represented the only fatality
- Intersection crashes were evenly split between daytime and
darkness
- Left-turn crashes were the most common intersection crash
type, accounting for half of KSI crashes
- Segment: 42% of crashes involved a ped, including the only
fatality
- Segment: 58% of crashes occurred during darkness or dawn/
Cactus: 31st Ave to 23rd Ave 2 Yes Yes dusk. F
- Segment crashes did not decline in 2020
- Intersection: Half of crashes involved a ped or bike
- Intersection: 75% of crashes occurred during darkness
- 33% of segment crashes and 33% of segment fatalities involved
a bicyclist or pedestrian
- 58% of segment crashes occurred during daylight
- 25% of intersection crashes, but no fatalities, involved bicyclists
19th Ave: Greenway Rd. to
2 Yes Yes or pedestrians P
Grovers Ave.
- 38% of intersection crashes occurred during darkness or dawn/
dusk
- Intersection: left-turn crashes were the most common crash
type, accounting for 63% of crashes
- Segment: 14% of crashes involved a ped, but no fatals
- 3 segment head-on crashes occurred, an unusually high
number
Bethany Home Rd: 35th
2 No No - 43% of segment crashes occurred during darkness PC
Ave to 31st Ave
- Intersection: 43% of crashes involved a ped, including both
fatals
- Intersection: Mix of daylight and dark crashes




Page 167
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022



HIN COMPOSITE PROJECTS (CONT.)
HIN RSAP USDOT
Status: RC,
Location Segment Equity Underserved Key Crash Characteristics
PC, P, F
Tier (1-3) Analysis Community

- 73% of segment crashes occurred during darkness.
- 53% of segment crashes involved a ped or bike. Both fatal
segment crashes involved a ped.
Peoria Ave: 25th Ave to - Left-turn and angle crashes comprise 40% of segment crashes.
3 Yes Yes F
28th Dr - 75% of intersection crashes occurred during darkness or dawn/
dusk.
- 63% of intersection crashes involved a ped or bike. Both fatal
intersection crashes involved a ped.
- 25% of segment crashes involved a ped or bike, but no fatalities.
- Half of segment crashes occurred during daylight and half
during darkness.
27th Ave: Thomas to
3 Yes Yes - 14% of intersection crashes involved a pedestrian, including 1 PC, P
Roosevelt
fatality.
- No intersection crashes occurred in 2020.
- 43% of intersection crashes occurred during darkness.
- 19% of segment KSI crashes and 25% of fatalities involved a
pedestrian or bicyclist.
- All segment fatal crashes occurred between 36th and 39th Ave.
Northern Ave: 43rd Ave to - 56% of segment crashes occurred during daylight.
3 Yes Yes P, F
35th Ave - No intersection ped crashes but 1 bike crash (14% of all
crashes).
- 86% of intersection crashes occurred during daylight.
- No intersection KSI crashes in 2019 or 2020."
- Very high number of fatal crashes (12) in these segments.
- Segments: Ped crashes account for 18% of crashes and 33% of
fatalities.
- 59% of segment crashes occurred during darkness or dawn/
43rd Ave: Maryland to
3 Yes Yes dusk, including all ped crashes. P
Camelback
- Intersection: 29% of crashes involved a pedestrian, including
the one fatal crash.
- Intersection: 71% of crashes occurred during darkness or
dawn/dusk.
- Peds account for half of segment crashes and the segment
fatality. (The PHB at 34th Avenue was previously an RRFB and
was converted to PHB control in 2018 or 2019. The ped crash
Dunlap: 35th Ave to 31st there occurred while it was an RRFB in 2016.)
3 Yes Yes PC
Ave - 33% of segment crashes occurred during dark conditions.
- 33% of intersection crashes involve a ped, including the only
fatal.
- 83% of intersection crashes occurred during darkness.
- Segments: 25% of crashes involved a pedestrian, including 2
of 3 fatals.
- Half of crashes occurred during daylight and half during
43rd Ave: Orangewood Ave darkness.
3 No Yes P
to Maryland - Intersection: 33% of crashes involved a pedestrian and
accounted for both intersection fatalities.
- Intersection: 83% of crashes occurred during daylight.
- No intersection crashes in 2020.

Page 168
A Path Forward




RESOURCES
While the City of Phoenix currently funds a significant amount of projects, operations, programs, and
staff to improve safety on its streets across many departments, the commitment to Vision Zero will
require additional resources. These resources can be understood as on-going costs, a one-time
(project specific) cost, and costs for a specific time period. The table below outlines a resource
need framework categorized by 4 of the 5 E’s, costs for implementation of strategies and projects,
additional staff, and potential funding sources. This framework will be fully developed separately
from this Plan by December 2022.




Strategy/ Additional
Potential Funding Sources
Project Costs Staff

Ongoing Low Low City

Evaluation
One Time Low Low City, Regional, State, Federal
Specific # of - - City, Regional, State, Federal
Ongoing High Medium City, Regional, State, Federal




Enforcement Engineering
One Time High Medium City, Regional, State, Federal
Specific # of High Medium City, Regional, State, Federal
Ongoing Medium High City, State, Federal
One Time Medium High City, , State, Federal
Specific # of Medium High City, State, Federal
Ongoing Low Low City, Regional, State, Federal

Education
One Time Low Low City, Regional, State, Federal
Specific # of Low Low City, Regional, State, Federal

Strategy/Project Costs: Low = Under $1 million, Medium = $1 - $5 million, High = Over $5 million

Additional Staff: Low = 1 to 3 staff, Medium = 4 to 10, High = 10 +




Page 169
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022




REPORTING & TRACKING
The Phoenix RSAP stands apart from other transportation planning efforts due to the diverse range
of strategies, coverage of strategies beyond engineering solutions, the defined vision, and the tracking
and monitoring elements. The RSAP progress will involve review of the implementation plan outcomes
outcomes of the implementation plan, adjusting measures and action items, consistently reporting on
an annual basis, and continuous effort and involvement from the Vision Zero Executive Task Force,
RSAP Implementation Team, and the Community Advisory Committee.


The Phoenix RSAP’s ultimate goal is to have zero traffic related fatalities on its streets by 2050.
This goal aligns with the City’s street and transit improvement plan and funding source, known as
Transportation 2050 – T2050. The T2050 Plan is funded by a City of Phoenix 0.7 percent sales
tax; this sales tax dedicates 7/10ths of a cent or 70 cents on a $100 purchase to transit and street
improvements.


Recognizing the 28-year timeframe to reach vision zero, two interim targets are set to ensure that
implementation is on track:




&
2050: ZERO Fatal and 2027: 25% reduction in fatal crashes*
Serious Injury Crashes -Potential 22% reduction from addressing the HIN

on Phoenix Streets 2035: 60% reduction in fatal crashes*
*Baseline Year: 2020



VISION ZERO TASK FORCE
An internal City of Phoenix RSAP Working Group worked together over the past 13 months to develop
this Plan. To continue this important work and implement the RSAP, the City has shifted gears and
formally established a Vision Zero Task Force Framework.


The Vision Zero Task Force is organized into a three-tiered system that includes a network of department
liaisons, sponsors, and members of the community. The framework includes: the Executive Task
Force, the Roadway Safety Action Plan (RSAP) Implementation Team, and the Community Advisory
Committee. City of Phoenix administration, management, department sponsors, and liasons
are included in Tier 1 and 2 who will serve as department leads responsible for implementation
of the RSAP. Departments considered for inclusion are Community & Economic Development,
Mayor and City Council Offices, Fire, Housing, Human Services, Information Technology Services,



Page 170
A Path Forward



Neighborhood Services, Parks and Recreation, Planning and Development, Police, Public Transit,
and Street Transportation.


Tier 1: The Executive Task Force will offer overarching guidance and direction on the implementation of
the RSAP. This includes reviewing and approving quarterly, and annual RSAP updates created by the
RSAP Implementation Team and assisting with presentations to the Community Advisory Committee
and City Council as needed. The final role of the Executive Task Force is to ensure Department
Liaisons are assisting with RSAP Implementation Team objectives.


Meeting Cadence: Quarterly
Composition: A Deputy City Manager, executive Street Transportation Department (STR) staff, the
project team lead from the RSAP Implementation Team, a Council or Mayor’s Office representative,
and Department Sponsors.


Tier 2: RSAP Implementation Team, will be responsible for carrying out and tracking progress of the
RSAP Implementation Plan. They will work with the Executive Task Force to provide quarterly Vision
Zero updates to the Community Advisory Committee related to the status of the City’s Vision Zero
goal and incorporate recommendations from the Executive Task Force and Community Advisory
Committee into the RSAP. The RSAP Implementation Team will work with relevant Department
Liaisons on related projects and work to create the annual Vision Zero status update.


Meeting Cadence: Monthly
Composition: The Street Transportation Department Deputy Director, a Principal Planner related
to pedestrian safety, a Community and Public Engagement Team member or Directors Office
representative, and Department Liaisons.


Tier 3: Community Advisory Committee, will review quarterly updates from the RSAP Implementation
Team, provide feedback and recommendations regarding the action plan to both the RSAP
Implementation Team and Executive Task Force, request future agenda items, and coordinate with
related City Council Offices.


Meeting Cadence: Quarterly
Composition: 11 members of the public (1 per council district and 3 by mayoral appointment from key
stakeholder groups).




Page 171
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022



PERFORMANCE REVIEW CYCLE
The performance review cycle ties the different pieces of the implementation plan together in
systematic, transparent, and adaptable process that has distinct deliverables. Part of this cycle is
the developing and delivering the annual RSAP status report. An annual report is proposed due to
the nature of crash data collection, project delivery, and post-project analysis. Supporting this effort
will be updating the HIN every three years, based on the previous 5-years of crash data (Strategy
GN.01B). This analysis will be included in the report accordingly.


The Vision Zero Task Force will utilize existing and new tools, such as the crash data dashboard,
to collect, track, and analyze data to understand the status of performance metrics. Information
will be shared through the Vision Zero Task Force to determine if modifications to the Plan and/or
performance measures should occur.




The annual RSAP status report is anticipated to include the following elements:

• Vision Zero Performance Metrics (baseline & benchmark data)
• Map illustrating projects and status of addressing the HIN
• Examples of completed safety improvements
• Strategy success stories
• Refresh of “The Facts”




FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE VISIT PHOENIX.GOV/ROADSAFETY

Page 172
A Path Forward




THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK




Page 173
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022




APPENDICIES
APPEDNIX A: PHOENIX CRASH SAFETY REVIEW USING MAG RTSIMS DATA VIII


APPEDNIX B: HIGH INJURY NETWORK (HIN) XCVII


APPEDNIX C: ROAD SAFETY TOOLBOXES CII




vii
Page 174
Appendicies




APPENDIX A: PHOENIX CRASH SAFETY REVIEW
USING MAG RTSIMS DATA




FINAL REPORT: SEPTEMBER 28, 2021


PREPARED FOR:




PREPARED BY:
Y2K Engineering, LLC
Project No. 21-059B

1921 S. Alma School Rd, Ste 204, Mesa, AZ 85210

480.696.1701

info@y2keng.com




viii
Page 175
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................................... iv
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................................. 6
GENERAL TRENDS .............................................................................................................................................................. 7
CRASHES BY MONTH ....................................................................................................................................................... 10
CRASHES BY DAY OF WEEK ............................................................................................................................................ 11
CRASHES BY TIME OF DAY .............................................................................................................................................. 12
CRASHES BY LOCATION .................................................................................................................................................. 12
BEHAVIOR CHARACTERISTICS ....................................................................................................................................... 16
TRENDS BY PERSON TYPE .............................................................................................................................................. 17
PEDESTRIANS ................................................................................................................................................................... 17
BICYCLISTS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 20
OLDER DRIVERS (Age 65 and Older) ............................................................................................................................. 22
YOUNGER DRIVERS (Age 24 and Younger) .................................................................................................................. 24
TRENDS OF FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES ................................................................................................ 26
KA CRASHES BY COLLISION MANNER .......................................................................................................................... 26
KA CRASHES BY MONTH ................................................................................................................................................. 27
KA CRASHES BY DAY OF WEEK....................................................................................................................................... 27
KA CRASHES BY TIME OF DAY ........................................................................................................................................ 28
KA CRASHES BY LOCATION ............................................................................................................................................ 28
KA CRASHES BY BEHAVIOR ............................................................................................................................................ 30
COMPARISON TO STATEWIDE AND REGIONAL SAFETY TRENDS ........................................................................... 31
PEDESTRIANS ................................................................................................................................................................... 34
BICYCLISTS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 36
OLDER DRIVERS (65 and older) ..................................................................................................................................... 37
YOUNGER DRIVERS (24 and below) .............................................................................................................................. 38
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................................... 39

LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: RTSIMS Query Outputs




RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page i
Page 176
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Number of Crashes per Year and Collision Manner ..................................................................................... 9
Table 2: Number of Pedestrian and Bicyclists Crashes per Year and Collision Manner .................................... 10
Table 3: High Crash Risk Intersections (Intersection Safety Score) ....................................................................... 14

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: City of Phoenix Population Comparison to State and County ................................................................ 7
Figure 2: Total Number of Crashes per Year and Injury Severity (Local and Arterial Roads) .............................. 8
Figure 3: Total Number of Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes per Year (Local and Arterial Roads) .................... 8
Figure 4: Number of Crashes by Month (2015-2019) ................................................................................................. 10
Figure 5: Number of Serious Injury and Fatal Crashes by Month (2015-2019)..................................................... 11
Figure 6: Number of Crashes by Day of the Week (2015-2019) ............................................................................... 11
Figure 7: Share of Crashes by Light Condition, 2015-2019 ...................................................................................... 12
Figure 8: Number of Crashes by Hour of the Day and Light Condition (2015-2019) .......................................... 12
Figure 9: Crash Location Relative to Junctions, by Year .......................................................................................... 13
Figure 10: Injury Severity of Intersection-Related Crashes ...................................................................................... 13
Figure 11: Collision Manner of Intersection-Related Crashes ................................................................................. 13
Figure 12: High-Crash Intersections (Top 20 Intersection Safety Score) .............................................................. 15
Figure 13: Number of Crashes Involving Impaired Drivers, by Hour ...................................................................... 16
Figure 14: Number of Crashes Involving Unrestrained Drivers, by Year and Injury Severity ............................ 16
Figure 15: Speed-Related Collisions, by Year and Injury Severity .......................................................................... 17
Figure 16: Injury Severity for Crashes Involving Pedestrians, by Year ................................................................... 18
Figure 17: Collision Manner for Crashes Involving Pedestrians, by Year............................................................... 18
Figure 18: Number of Crashes Involving Pedestrians, by Month ............................................................................ 19
Figure 19: Number of Crashes Involving Pedestrians, by Hour .............................................................................. 19
Figure 20: Injury Severity for Crashes Involving Bicyclists, by Year ........................................................................ 20
Figure 21: Injury Severity for Crashes Involving Bicyclists, by Collision Manner (2015-2019)........................... 20
Figure 22: Number of Crashes Involving Bicyclists, by Month ................................................................................ 21
Figure 23: Number of Crashes Involving Bicyclists, by Hour ................................................................................... 21
Figure 24: Injury Severity for Crashes Involving Older Drivers, 2015-2019............................................................ 22
Figure 25: Collision Manner for Crashes Involving Older Drivers, by Year ............................................................ 22
Figure 26: Number of Crashes Involving Older Drivers, by Month.......................................................................... 23
Figure 27: Number of Crashes Involving Older Drivers, by Hour ............................................................................ 23
Figure 28: Injury Severity for Crashes Involving Younger Drivers, 2015-2019 (N=62,512) .................................. 24



RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page ii
Page 177
Figure 29: Collision Manner for Crashes Involving Younger Drivers, by Year ....................................................... 24
Figure 30: Number of Crashes Involving Younger Drivers, by Month..................................................................... 25
Figure 31: Number of Crashes Involving Younger Drivers, by Hour ....................................................................... 25
Figure 32: Crashes by Collision Manner and Severity, 2015-2019 .......................................................................... 26
Figure 33: Number of Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes, by Month, 2015-2019 ................................................... 27
Figure 34: Number of Fatal and Serious Injuries Crashes, by Day of the Week ................................................... 27
Figure 35: Share of Fatal and Serious Injuries Crashes by Light Condition, 2015-2019 ..................................... 28
Figure 36: Number of Fatal and Serious Injuries Crashes, by Hour and Lighting Condition ............................ 28
Figure 37: Number of Fatal and Serious Injuries Crashes, by Relation to the Intersection .............................. 29
Figure 38: Number of Intersection-Related Fatal and Serious Injuries Crashes, by Collision Manner ........... 29
Figure 39: Frequency of Unrestrained Driving and Speed Violation in KA Crashes............................................ 30
Figure 40: Total Crashes Comparison of State of Arizona, MAG Region, and City of Phoenix.......................... 31
Figure 41: Crash Severity Comparison of State of Arizona, MAG Region, and City of Phoenix (2015-2018) .. 32
Figure 42: Fatal Crashes Comparison of Arizona, Maricopa County, and City of Phoenix ................................ 32
Figure 43: Total Number of Fatalities (Persons) per Year Comparison, Arizona and City of Phoenix ............ 32
Figure 44: 2019 Fatalities and Percent Changes From 2018, by State (Person-Level). ...................................... 33
Figure 45: Percentage of Total Fatalities Involving Pedestrians, by State (Persons) ......................................... 34
Figure 46: Share of Total Fatalities Who Were Pedestrians, Comparison across Geographies ....................... 34
Figure 47: Pedestrian Crashes per Year, Comparison across Geographies ......................................................... 35
Figure 48: Severity of Pedestrian Crashes, Comparison across Geographies (2015-2018) ............................... 35
Figure 49: Bicycle Crashes per Year, Comparison across Geographies ................................................................ 36
Figure 50: Severity of Bicycle Crashes, Comparison across Geographies (2015-2018)...................................... 36
Figure 51: Older Driver Crashes per Year, MAG Region, and City of Phoenix ....................................................... 37
Figure 52: Severity of Older Driver Crashes, MAG Region and Phoenix (2015-2018) .......................................... 37
Figure 53: Younger Driver Crashes per Year, MAG Region, and City of Phoenix .................................................. 38
Figure 54: Severity of Younger Driver Crashes, MAG Region and Phoenix (2015-2018) ..................................... 38




RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page iii
Page 178
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Phoenix is currently in the process of developing a Comprehensive Roadway Safety Action Plan,
which will further shape the City’s planning efforts in roadway safety. This project involves a review of
current safety trends, existing programs and processes, and public/stakeholder involvement to create a
vision and plan for the future. This memorandum is intended to provide a preliminary overview of historical
crash trends within the City of Phoenix within the past five years. In later stages of this project, a dynamic
crash dashboard will be developed to provide enhanced abilities in data analytics and reporting.
In the initial stages of this project, crash queries were obtained through the Maricopa Association of
Governments (MAG) software tool for crash analysis, the Regional Transportation Safety Information
Management System (RTSIMS). This report uses existing tools to conduct a safety analysis of the past five
years, and compares trends to regional and statewide data. The following key findings are based on a
review of RTSIMS crash data from 2015 to 2019:
• An annual average 30,376 crashes per year were reported during the five year study period. This
equates to 83 crashes per day.
• Crashes on arterial and local roadways in the City of Phoenix increased by a rate of about 4.4% per
year. This trend suggests that the crash frequency increased at a higher rate than the City’s
population, which in the same period grew 1.5% per year, on average.
• Most crashes result in no injury (70%), approximately one-quarter result in possible or minor injury
(27%), 2.6% result in serious injury, and 0.6% result in fatal injury. This equates to two serious injury
crashes occurring each day, and one fatal crash occurring every other day.
• The percentage of fatal and serious injury crashes has remained generally consistent over the past
five years; however the percentage of no injury crashes has steadily increased over time.
• For all crash severities, rear end crashes were the most common collision manner, followed by left-
turn crashes. These two crash types account for about half of all crashes.
• For fatal and serious injury crashes, the “Other” collision manner was reported most frequent
(25%), which is commonly selected for crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists. Other frequent
crash types for fatal and serious injury crashes were left-turn (23%) and angle (21%).
• Crashes involving unrestrained drivers (i.e, lack of seatbelt or helmet use) have reduced in
frequency.
• Due to lack of protection on impact, pedestrians and bicyclists (vulnerable users) are more
frequently seriously injured when involved in motor vehicle crashes. In the City of Phoenix, crashes
involving bicyclists and pedestrians represent nearly half (48%) of all fatal crashes.
• A greater share of pedestrian crashes is occurring in Phoenix compared to other agencies within
the MAG Region. Phoenix represents 36% of Maricopa County’s population and about 43% of the
County’s local and arterial road crashes; however, 63% of County crashes involving pedestrians
occurred on City of Phoenix’s local and arterial roads.
• Bicyclist crashes are occurring at a greater rate in Phoenix than in other agencies within the MAG
Region. About 43% of all crashes involving bicyclists in Maricopa County occurred on City of
Phoenix’s local and arterial roads.
• For all crash severities, the majority of crashes occur during daylight hours (71%), with the
remaining 29% of crashes occurring during dawn, dusk, or dark conditions.
• A correlation exists between injury severity and lighting condition; fatal and serious injury crashes
occurred more frequently during dawn, dusk, and dark conditions (45%) compared to daylight
conditions (55%).



RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page iv
Page 179
MAG RTSIMS tool provided the ability to retrieve data quickly for numerous Citywide statistics. During the
analysis process, several discrepancies were identified when comparing to past Phoenix data, which is
common when comparing different datasets. The City of Phoenix conducts a robust data scrubbing process
each year, which confirms crashes exist within the City of Phoenix boundaries, omits freeway crashes, and
reviews characteristics of crashes in detail to correct the manner of collision if originally mis-coded. The
RTSIMS crash data is not scrubbed, and comes directly from ADOT ACIS. These differences, along with
variations in the querying process, are acknowledged as part of this report. This data contained in this
report is intended to provide preliminary information; later stages of this project will modernize the existing




RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page v
INTRODUCTION
The City of Phoenix is currently in the process of developing a Comprehensive Roadway Safety Action Plan,
which will further shape the City’s planning efforts in roadway safety. This project involves a review of
current safety trends, existing programs and processes, and public/stakeholder involvement to create a
vision and plan for the future. This memorandum is intended to provide a preliminary overview of historical
crash trends within the City of Phoenix within the past five years. Through the development of the project,
a dynamic crash dashboard will be developed to provide enhanced abilities in data analytics and reporting.
In the initial stages of the project, crash queries were obtained through the Maricopa Association of
Governments (MAG) software tool for crash analysis, the Regional Transportation Safety Information
Management System (RTSIMS).
The City of Phoenix prepares comprehensive collision summary reports each year, documenting the past
year of motor vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle-related crashes. This report uses existing tools (RTSIMS) to
conduct a supplementary safety analysis of the past five years, and compare trends to regional and
statewide data.
Crash data within the City of Phoenix was obtained for the past five years through the RTSIMS tool, from
January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2019. At the time of the analysis, 2020 crash data was not available. The
RTSIMS platform compiles historical crash data from the Arizona Crash Information System (ACIS) crash
database maintained by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). The RTSIMS data excludes
freeways, highways, and ramps; only arterial, collector, and local roadways are included. RTSIMS refers to
this group as “Arterial and Local Roads”. This naming refers to roadway classification and does not imply
roadway ownership. The results of traffic safety data queries may differ slightly based on data source,
filtering assumptions, modifications to raw data, and/or query techniques. The RTSIMS safety review is
intended to identify trends and inform decisions to support roadway safety.
Due to the limited sample size of fatal crashes, fatal and serious injury crashes were combined to analyze
trends in critical crashes. Unlike less severe crashes, the most common collision manner for fatal and
serious injury crashes is “Other”, which primarily represents bicyclist and pedestrian crashes, followed by
left-turn and angle crashes. It was also observed that KA crashes are overrepresented in non-daylight
conditions.
According to the US Census Bureau Annual Population Estimates (Figure 1), the City of Phoenix’s
population has grown about 6% during the five years under study, from 2015 to 2019. In 2020, the City of
Phoenix’s residents represented 23% of Arizona’s population and 36% of Maricopa County’s Population.




RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 6
Arizona Maricopa County City of Phoenix


7.16 7.28
6.94 7.04
6.83 +6.6%




Population (Millions)
4.26 4.33 4.40 4.49 +7.5%
4.17




1.58 1.61 1.63 1.65 1.68
+6.1%




2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Figure 1: City of Phoenix Population Comparison to State and County
(Source: US Census Bureau, Annual Estimates of Resident Population)


GENERAL TRENDS
Since 2015, the total number of crashes within the City of Phoenix has been steadily increasing, with a total
of 31,827 crashes occurring in 2019 on the City’s local and arterial roadway network. Figure 2 shows the
number of crashes by injury severity for each year in the analysis period. The percentage of fatal crashes
has stayed relatively constant, ranging from 0.5% to 0.7% of all crashes. The percentage of serious injury
crashes varied between 2.1% and 3.2% of fatal crashes. The combined minor injury and possible injury
ranged has steadily decreased over the past five years, from 30.7% (2015) to 23.8% (2019). The share of no
injury crashes has increased over the past five years, from 66.0% (2015) to 73.6% (2019). This data suggests
a slight downward trend in the severity of crashes.
Figure 3 shows the number of fatal and serious injury crashes from 2015 to 2019, which combined are
trending towards fewer crashes since 2016.




RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 7
No Injury Possible Injury Minor Injury Serious Injury Fatal

202; 0.6% 230; 0.7% 172; 0.5%
192; 0.6%
665; 2.1%
976; 3.2% 875; 2.8% 749; 2.4%
155; 0.6%
3,058; 9.6%
746; 2.8% 3,707; 12.0% 3,627; 11.7% 3,378; 10.9%
4,509; 14.2%
2,769; 10.3% 4,400; 14.2%
5,018; 16.2% 5,139; 16.5%




Number of Crashes
5,508; 20.4%




21,019; 21,263; 22,269; 23,423;
17,828;
68.0% 68.4% 71.8% 73.6%
66.0%




2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Figure 2: Total Number of Crashes per Year and Injury Severity (Local and Arterial Roads)



Serious Injury Fatal








Number of Crashes


746 749




2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Figure 3: Total Number of Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes per Year (Local and Arterial Roads)




RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 8
Crash data from 2020 was not available through RTSIMS at the time of this report. Based on a preliminary
review of 2020 crash data, total number of crashes decreased by about 20% from 2019 crashes, which is
presumed to be related to lower vehicle miles travelled as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The share of
fatal and incapacitating injury crashes remained generally consistent with the previous five years; however,
the share of no injury crashes followed the same positive trend (increasing from 73.6% in 2019 to 74.2% in
2020). Preliminary 2021 crash data, obtained through the Phoenix Police Department Vehicle Crimes Unit
(VCU), indicate that there were 114 fatal crashes during the first six months of 2021.

Table 1 shows the distribution of crashes on City of Phoenix local and arterial roads by collision manner for
the past five years. The most frequently-reported crash types were rear-end crashes (29% of all reported
crashes) followed by left-turn crashes (23% of all crashes). Together, rear-end and left-turn crashes
represent about half of all crashes.
Table 1: Number of Crashes per Year and Collision Manner
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total %
Rear-end (Front-To-Rear) 8,319 9,144 9,002 8,811 8,870 44,146 29.1%
Left Turn 5,864 6,658 7,070 7,120 7,678 34,390 22.6%
Angle (Front to Side) (Other Than Left Turn) 5,246 5,434 5,448 5,434 5,404 26,966 17.8%
Sideswipe, Same Direction 3,259 4,176 4,149 4,374 4,602 20,560 13.5%
Single Vehicle 2,045 2,223 2,192 2,224 2,191 10,875 7.2%
Other (Includes Pedestrians and Bicyclists) 1,002 1,309 1,324 1,116 1,046 5,797 3.8%
Head-on (Front-To-Front) (Other Than Left Turn) 488 666 673 696 743 3,266 2.2%
Sideswipe, Opposite Direction 349 556 616 625 645 2,791 1.8%
Rear-To-Rear 163 430 277 230 195 1,295 <1%
Rear-To-Side 161 183 193 193 208 938 < 1%
Unknown 110 133 162 203 245 853 < 1%
Total 27,006 30,912 31,106 31,026 31,827 151,877

Note: The City of Phoenix uses a data scrubbing process to improve consistency of coding for collision manner. For
example, the City of Phoenix defines left-turn crashes as involving vehicles originally traveling in the opposing
(parallel) direction. If a crash involves a left-turning movement, but the vehicles originate in perpendicular paths,
the collision is defined as an angle crash. The results of Table 1 were summarized using RTSIMS data, which does
not involve the City of Phoenix scrubbing process. Therefore, these results vary from City of Phoenix scrubbed data,
which identifies that the leading manner of collision is rear-end crashes, followed by angle crashes, then left-turn
crashes.

Table 2 shows the number of pedestrian and bicyclist crashes per year, as well as the injury severity.
Pedestrian crashes have been slowly increasing over the past five years, while bicyclist crashes have been
decreasing. An initial review of 2020 data indicates consistency with these trends.

Over the five-year period, pedestrians were involved in an average of 86 fatal crashes per year, and bicyclists
were involved in an average of 8 fatal crashes per year. Combined, crashes involving pedestrians and
bicyclists represent nearly half (48.6%) of all fatal crashes. Preliminary 2021 crash data, obtained through
the Phoenix Police Department VCU, indicate that there a total of 114 fatal crashes reported in the first six
months of 2021, 52 (45.6%) of which involved pedestrians, and 4 (3.5%) of which involved bicyclists.


RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 9
Table 2: Number of Pedestrian and Bicyclists Crashes per Year and Collision Manner
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total
Bicyclists 438 485 470 384 298 2,075
No Injury 35 35 17 14 0 101
Possible Injury 157 151 152 129 118 707
Minor injuries 185 219 235 186 147 972
Serious Injury 53 71 52 52 26 254
Fatal 8 9 14 3 7 41
Pedestrians 617 771 813 825 820 3,846
No Injury 30 24 9 9 0 72
Possible Injury 153 164 194 186 247 944
Minor injuries 247 306 319 332 347 1,551
Serious Injury 127 189 197 187 148 848
Fatal 60 88 94 111 78 431
All Crashes 27,006 30,912 31,106 31,026 31,827 151,877



CRASHES BY MONTH
Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the frequency of crashes in the City of Phoenix (arterial and local roads) by
month. The month-to-month trends are consistent between all crashes, serious injury crashes, and fatal
crashes. March registered the highest number of crashes, including fatal and injury crashes. The month with
the fewest reported crashes was July, which correlates with lower summer traffic volumes. Lower traffic
volumes in June and July are often associated with school breaks, seasonal resident travel, lower
pedestrian and bicyclist activity, and lower traffic volumes in general due to the high temperatures.

All crashes Average Temperature* (⁰F)

16,000 120
14,000




Number of Crashes
12,000



Temperature (oF)
10,000
8,000 60
6,000
4,000
2,000
- 0




Figure 4: Number of Crashes by Month (2015-2019)


RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 10
Serious injury Fatal
409 398
377 369
332 328 314
294 291




Number of Crashes
276 275




80 77 83 71 84 78 85 75 84
65 67




Figure 5: Number of Serious Injury and Fatal Crashes by Month (2015-2019)



CRASHES BY DAY OF WEEK
Figure 6 shows the distribution of crashes by weekday. Crashes occur most frequently on Fridays, while the
fewest crashes occur on Sundays. Fatal crashes occur most often on Saturdays and Sundays, and occur
less frequently on Mondays.

Serious injury Fatal All crashes

30,000 800
25,000




Fatal and Serious Injury
20,000

All Crashes
15,000 400
10,000
5,000
- -




Figure 6: Number of Crashes by Day of the Week (2015-2019)



RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 11
CRASHES BY TIME OF DAY
Figure 7 shows that the majority of
crashes (71%) occurred under Light Condition (N=151,845)
daylight conditions, with 29% of 2.2% < 1% (Not Available) Dark- Lighted
crashes occurring during dawn,
dusk, or dark conditions.
Dark- Not lighted
Figure 8 shows how the crashes are
distributed by lighting conditions 23.6% Dark- Unknown lighting
over the course of the day. In
addition to the AM peak around 7 to 1.6% Dawn
8 AM, a large number of crashes
< 1%
occur during the PM peak from 3 to 6 Daylight
PM. 70.7% 1.5%
Crashes involving dawn and dusk Dusk
conditions were limited between 4
to 7 AM and 4 to 7 PM, respectively. Not available


Figure 7: Share of Crashes by Light Condition, 2015-2019

Dark Dawn Daylight Dusk Not Available






Number of Crashes





0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
HOUR
Figure 8: Number of Crashes by Hour of the Day and Light Condition (2015-2019)

CRASHES BY LOCATION
To classify a crash’s relation to the junction, crashes were separated by Junction Type as either an
Intersection/Interchange crash or a Non-Intersection/Non-Interchange crash. Figure 9 shows where the
location type of crashes that occurred during the study period of 2015 to 2019.




RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 12
Intersection/Interchange Non-interchange and Non-intersection


47% 49% 48% 50% 48%


53% 51% 52% 50% 52%


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
(N=27,006) (N=30,912) (N=31,106) (N=31,026) (N=31,827)
Figure 9: Crash Location Relative to Junctions, by Year

Figure 10 shows the injury severity between the three location types. In general, crashes are slightly more
severe at intersections and interchanges, compared to segment collisions, which correlates with the
greater frequency and types of collisions/conflict points possible.

Non-interchange and Intersection/ Interchange
non-intersection (N=78,078)
(N=73,799)
2% <1% 3% <1%
No injury
10% 12%
Possible injury
14% Minor injury
18%
67% Serious injury
73%
Fatal



Figure 10: Injury Severity of Intersection/Interchange-Related Crashes

The collision manner of intersection and interchange crashes is shown in Figure 11. The three most
common crash types at intersections are left-turns, rear-ends, and angle crashes, respectively.
Number of Crashes
Left turn 23,310
Rear end 20,647
Angle (front to side)(other than left turn) 17,146
Sideswipe same direction 7,827
Other 3,467
Single vehicle 3,279
Head on 1,263
Sideswipe opposite direction 1,139
Figure 11: Collision Manner of Intersection/Interchange-Related Crashes




RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 13
To rank the intersections based on a holistic safety analysis, the MAG’s network screening methodology
was used to classify the City of Phoenix’s intersections per their safety score. The scoring methodology
combines three safety attributes on the intersection, including crash frequency, crash severity, and crash
type. The three factors are weighted together for the final Intersection Safety Score, with crash severity as
50%, crash frequency as 25%, and crash type as 50% of the weighting. Table 3 and Figure 12 show the Top
20 intersections with the highest Intersection Safety Score within the City of Phoenix.
The intersections with the greatest crash risk exist at 1) 75th Avenue and Indian School Road, 2) 67th Avenue
and Indian School Road, and 3) 67th Avenue and McDowell Road. Formal Road Safety Assessments (RSA)
have been conducted at 10 of the Top 20 high crash risk intersections.

Table 3: High Crash Risk Intersections (Intersection Safety Score)
Rank, Rank, Crash Crash Crash
RSA # Final
City of MAG Location Frequency Severity Type
Conducted? Crashes Score
Phoenix Region Score (CF) Score (CS) Score (CT)
1 1 2015*,2021* 75th Ave & Indian School Rd 251 1.06 1.36 1.29 1.26
2 2 2013, 2015*, 67th Ave & Indian School Rd 273 1.15 1.32 1.18 1.24
2021*
3 3 2016 67th Ave & McDowell Rd 246 1.04 1.30 1.27 1.23
4 4 99th Ave & Lower Buckeye Rd 316 1.33 1.23 0.91 1.17
5 6 51st Ave & McDowell Rd 201 0.85 1.09 1.23 1.06
6 8 43rd Ave & Bethany Home Rd 194 0.82 1.08 1.16 1.03
7 9 2021* 75th Ave & McDowell Rd 215 0.91 1.07 0.97 1.01
8 10 2019* 27th Ave & Camelback Rd 203 0.86 1.07 0.97 1.00
9 13 7th Ave & Indian School Rd 191 0.81 0.97 1.10 0.96
10 14 75th Ave & Thomas Rd 192 0.81 1.01 1.01 0.96
11 15 35th Ave & Bethany Home Rd 194 0.82 0.99 1.04 0.96
12 16 2018 43rd Ave & Peoria Ave 196 0.83 1.06 0.89 0.96
13 17 2021 35th Ave & Glendale Ave 188 0.79 0.99 1.05 0.96
14 18 2021 24th St & Baseline Rd 204 0.86 1.00 0.92 0.95
15 19 2013 51st Ave & Indian School Rd 193 0.81 0.96 1.03 0.94
16 21 43rd Ave & Northern Ave 186 0.79 0.95 0.97 0.91
17 23 43rd Ave & McDowell Rd 184 0.78 0.97 0.90 0.91
18 24 2021* 83rd Ave & Indian School Rd 170 0.72 0.95 1.00 0.90
19 27 43rd Ave & Glendale Ave 190 0.80 0.94 0.82 0.88
20 28 2018 35th Ave & Bell Rd 150 0.63 0.89 1.08 0.87

Note: *Location was studied as part of a corridor RSA.




RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 14
Figure 12: High-Crash Intersections (Top 20 Intersection Safety Score)



RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 15
BEHAVIOR CHARACTERISTICS
In the period of 2015 to 2019, alcohol and drug-impaired drivers were responsible for 7,487 crashes, which
represents 5% of all crashes on local and arterial roads in the City of Phoenix. However, of all 4,962 fatal and
serious injury crashes, 1,117 (22%) were associated with impaired drivers. Figure 13 shows the distribution
of crashes involving impaired drivers (alcohol, drugs) by the hour of the day. Unlike the total number of
crashes that show two distinct peaks of crashes over the AM and PM traffic peaks (Figure 8), crashes
involving impaired drivers are mostly concentrated during the late hours of the night (7 PM to 3 AM).


568 575
533 546 546
469 481




Number of Crashes
320 296
212 220
142 143 153
117 109 108 99 108 106



0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Figure 13: Number of Crashes Involving Impaired Drivers, by Hour
During the five years analyzed in this report, the total number of crashes involving unrestrained drivers
show a steady decline. From 2015 to 2019, unrestrained driver crashes have reduced by approximately 20%.
Figure 14 shows the injury severity of such crashes over the years. On average, about 7% of unrestrained
driver crashes are fatal crashes, which is a significantly larger share compared to all crashes.

No injury Possible injury Non-incapacitating injury Incapacitating injury Fatal

115 61 46
110 120 61 40




Number of Crashes
96 100
270 249
234 206
163 164 138

309 264 266
250 252


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Figure 14: Number of Crashes Involving Unrestrained Drivers, by Year and Injury Severity




RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 16
Figure 15 shows the severity associated with speed-related crashes across the study period. While on
average about 70% of speed-related crashes result in no injury, close to 2% of such crashes result in serious
injury or fatality.
No Injury Possible Injury Minor injury Major injury Fatal


35 37 42
282 244 186 37
46 190
260 1,871 1,935 1,798 1,719
1,600
2,552




Number of Crashes
2,826 2,764 2,598
2,985




10,772 10,947 11,181 10,844
9,894




2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Note: Violation considered was “Speed too fast for conditions”.
Figure 15: Speed-Related Collisions, by Year and Injury Severity


TRENDS BY PERSON TYPE
This sub-section of the report further explores crashes involving pedestrians, bicyclists, older drivers, and
younger drivers. The analysis period is from 2015 to 2019. Pedestrian and bicyclists are considered to be
vulnerable roadway users; as there is little to no protection in collisions with motor vehicles. Crashes
involving pedestrians and bicyclists are more likely to result in critical injuries.

PEDESTRIANS
Figure 16 shows the injury severity of crashes involving pedestrians on the City of Phoenix’s local and
arterial roads from 2015 to 2019. While most (70%) motor-vehicle crashes result in no injury, that is not the
case for crashes that involve pedestrians. Rather, 11% of crashes involving pedestrians were fatal and 22%
resulted in serious injuries. In the five studied years, the number of crashes involving pedestrians trended
upward, with 2019 crashes representing a 33% increase from 2015.




RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 17
No injury Possible injury Minor injury Serious injury Fatal



94; 11.6% 111; 13.5% 78; 9.5%
88; 11.4%
148; 18.0%
197; 24.2% 187; 22.7%
60; 9.7% 189; 24.5%




Number of Crashes
127; 20.6%

347; 42.3%
319; 39.2% 332; 40.2%
306; 39.7%
247; 40.0%




153; 24.8% 247; 30.1%
164; 21.4% 194; 23.9% 186; 22.5%

30; 4.9% 24; 3.1% 9; 1.1% 9; 1.1% 0; 0%
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Figure 16: Injury Severity for Crashes Involving Pedestrians, by Year


Figure 17 shows the collision manner for the crashes involving pedestrians. As most of the collision manner
categories developed for the Arizona Crash Report form are oriented towards motor vehicles, the most
common collision manner reported on pedestrian crashes was “Other”, which is often selected by the
responding police officer for crashes involving pedestrians or bicyclists.

No injury Injury Crashes Fatal Crashes
Number of Crashes
Other 31 1923 420
Angle (front to side)(other than left turn) 9 585 1
Left turn 10 323 7
Head-on 7 224 0
Unknown 2 91 2
Rear-end 6 72 1
Sideswipe same direction 5 71 0
Sideswipe opposite direction 2 41 0
Rear-to-side 0 10 0
Rear-to-rear 0 3 0

Figure 17: Collision Manner for Crashes Involving Pedestrians, by Year


RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 18
Figure 18 and Figure 19 show the distribution of pedestrian crashes by month and by hour, respectively.
The months with the highest frequency of crashes involving pedestrians are November and December. The
hours with the highest frequency of crashes involving pedestrians occur in the evening, from 6:00 pm to
9:00 pm.

401 401
365 371
300 294




Number of Crashes




Figure 18: Number of Crashes Involving Pedestrians, by Month



343 337






Number of Crashes
232 241
204 197
173 172
122 116 114 118
107 106
56 46 48



0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Figure 19: Number of Crashes Involving Pedestrians, by Hour




RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 19
BICYCLISTS
Similar to pedestrian crashes, crashes involving bicyclists registered higher rates of fatalities and serious
injuries, with virtually no crashes being reported as property damage only (Figure 20). During the past five
years, the number of bicycle-related crashes have trended downward. From 2015 to 2019, the number of
crashes involving bicyclists has reduced by 32%.
No injury Possible injury Minor injury Serious injury Fatal



9; 1.9%
14; 3.0%
8; 1.8%




Share of Bicyclist Crashes
71; 14.6%; 52; 11.1%
53; 12.1% 3; 0.8%
52; 13.5%
7; 2.3%
185; 42.2% 219; 45.2% 235; 50.0% 26; 8.7%
186; 48.4%
147; 49.3%

157; 35.8% 151; 31.1%
152; 32.3% 129; 33.6%
118; 39.6%
35; 8.0% 35; 7.2% 17; 3.6% 14; 3.6% 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Figure 20: Injury Severity for Crashes Involving Bicyclists, by Year


Figure 21 shows the collision manner for crashes involving bicyclists. As it was observed for pedestrian
crashes, the most common collision manner was “Other”. However, for crashes involving bicyclists, a
significant share of crashes was a result of angle crashes.
No injury Injury Crashes Fatal Crashes
Number of Crashes
Other 29 817 41
Angle (front to side)(other than left turn) 51 761 0
Left turn 6 152 0
Sideswipe same direction 5 73 0
Head-on 5 52 0
Rear-end 1 36 0
Unknown 1 21 0
Sideswipe opposite direction 2 19 0
Rear-to-side 1 1 0
Rear-to-rear 0 1 0

Figure 21: Injury Severity for Crashes Involving Bicyclists, by Collision Manner (2015-2019)



RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 20
Figure 22 and Figure 23 show the distribution of crashes involving bicyclists by month and by hour,
respectively. The month with the highest number of crashes involving bicyclists was March. The highest
number of crashes involving bicyclists correlates with vehicular morning and afternoon peak hours.




197 194
184 186 186 189
178 182




Number of Crashes
138 140




Figure 22: Number of Crashes Involving Bicyclists, by Month





150 161




Number of Crashes


105 107 106 100
96 97
82 86

33 34
19 26
6 8 9

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Figure 23: Number of Crashes Involving Bicyclists, by Hour




RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 21
OLDER DRIVERS (Age 65 and Older)
Older drivers (age 65 and older) were involved in 20,425 (13%) of all incidents reported in the City of
Phoenix’s local and arterial roads from 2015 to 2019. Figure 24 shows the injury severity of those crashes.

All Crashes (N=151,877) Older Drivers (N=20,425)
2.8% 0.7%
2.6% 0.6%

No injury
12%
11% Possible injury
16% 17% Minor injury
70% 67% Serious injury
Fatal



Figure 24: Injury Severity for Crashes Involving Older Drivers, 2015-2019


The most common collision manner of crashes involving older drivers were rear-end and left-turn crashes
are shown in Figure 25. Figure 26 shows the distribution of older driver crashes by month and Figure 27
shows the distribution by hour of the day. The month with the highest number of crashes involving older
drivers was March. The greatest frequency of older driver crashes occurs in the afternoon, from 2pm to 4pm.

No injury crashes Injury crashes Fatal crashes
Number of Crashes
- 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000

Rear-end 3,670 1,769 12
Left turn 3,230 2,050 28
Angle (front to side)(other than left turn) 2,717 1,604 26
Sideswipe same direction 2,787 327 0
Other 245 351 50
Single-vehicle 277 174 9
Head-on 195 177 11
Sideswipe opposite direction 267 88 1
Rear-to-rear 116 57 0
Rear-to-side 119 18 0
Unknown 12 20 1


Figure 25: Collision Manner for Crashes Involving Older Drivers, by Year




RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 22
1,912 1,859 1,860
1,767 1,770
1,687 1,705 1,697 1,685
1,613
1,426 1,444



Number of Crashes




Figure 26: Number of Crashes Involving Older Drivers, by Month




1,976
1,820 1,826
1,639 1,609 1,614
1,468




Number of Crashes
1,321
1,146 1,168 1,183
1,000



467 449
186 201
90 59 99
35 36 33

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Figure 27: Number of Crashes Involving Older Drivers, by Hour




RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 23
YOUNGER DRIVERS (Age 24 and Younger)
Younger drivers (age 24 and below) were involved in 62,512 (41%) of all incidents reported in the City of
Phoenix’s local and arterial roads from 2015-2019. Figure 28 shows the injury severity of those crashes.


All Crashes (N=151,877) Younger Driver (N=62,512)
2.6% 0.6% 2.3% 0.5%

No injury
11% 11% Possible injury
16% 17% Minor injury
70%
70% Serious injury
Fatal


Figure 28: Injury Severity for Crashes Involving Younger Drivers, 2015-2019 (N=62,512)



Non injury crashes Injury Crashes Fatal Crashes

Number of Crashes
Rear-end 13,661 5,264 12
Left turn 10,645 5,992 63
Angle (front to side)(other than left turn) 7,358 3,932 51
Sideswipe same direction 6,409 879 8
Single-vehicle 2,438 988 27
Other 729 694 109
Head-on 705 514 21
Sideswipe opposite direction 793 210 2
Rear-to-rear 413 147 0
Rear-to-side 258 35 0
Unknown 102 47 7


Figure 29: Collision Manner for Crashes Involving Younger Drivers, by Year
The most common collision manners of crashes involving younger drivers were rear-end and left-turn
crashes (Figure 29). Figure 30 shows the distribution of younger driver crashes by month and Figure 31
shows the distribution by hour of the day. The month with the highest number of crashes involving younger
drivers was March. An increase in crash frequency was associated with the AM and PM peaks of vehicular
travel.




RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 24
5,685
5,496 5,494 5,516 5,380
5,225 5,180 5,317 5,258
4,975
4,604
4,383




Number of Crashes




Figure 30: Number of Crashes Involving Younger Drivers, by Month




5,916 6,007
5,606


4,519
4,353
4,119




Number of Crashes
3,285 3,319
3,062
2,854
2,557
2,357
1,980 2,036 2,115
1,850 1,728
1,142
827 814
586 602 471


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Figure 31: Number of Crashes Involving Younger Drivers, by Hour




RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 25
TRENDS OF FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES
This analysis uses the KABCO scale of crash severity, where “K” denotes a fatal crash, “A” is a serious injury
crash, “B” is a minor injury crash, “C” is a possible injury crash, and “O” is a property damage-only crash.
This subsection of the report further details crashes that resulted in at least one serious injury or fatality,
and this sub-set of crashes are referred to as “KA” or “KSI” Crashes. A review of critical crashes can identify
key trends for further investigation. Compared to reviewing fatal crashes only, reviewing the combination
of fatal and serious injury crashes provides a greater sample size and reduces the volatility between years.

KA CRASHES BY COLLISION MANNER
Figure 32 compares the collision manner of KA crashes with crashes that resulted in no injury, possible
injury, or minor injuries (BCO crashes). The most common collision manner of BCO crashes is rear-end
crashes, while the most common collision manner for KA crashes is “Other”. It is important here to note
that the “Other” category is often used to describe the collision manner of crashes involving pedestrians
(Figure 17) and crashes involving bicyclists (Figure 21). The second and third most common collision
manners for KA crashes are left-turn and angle crashes, respectively.

No injury, possible injury, and non-incapacitating injury crashes (N=146,915) KA crashes (N=4,962)



5%
Other
25%

7%
Single vehicle
11%

23%
Left turn
23%

18%
Angle (front to side)(other than left turn)
21%

2%
Head on
5%

30%
Rear end
10%

14%
Sideswipe same direction
3%

2%
Sideswipe opposite direction
1%

Figure 32: Crashes by Collision Manner and Severity, 2015-2019



RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 26
KA CRASHES BY MONTH
Figure 33 shows the distribution of KA crashes by month in the period of 2015 to 2019. Consistent with
overall crash trends, the month with the highest number of fatal crashes was March and the lowest number
of fatal crashes was observed in July.

481 462
425 444




Number of KA Crashes
399 398
360 372 358




Figure 33: Number of Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes, by Month, 2015-2019

KA CRASHES BY DAY OF WEEK
Figure 34 shows the distribution of fatal and serious injury crashes by day of the week. The day with the
highest frequency of serious crashes was Friday, and Sunday was the day with the lowest frequency of KA
crashes.
805 823
646 651




Number of KA Crashes




Figure 34: Number of Fatal and Serious Injuries Crashes, by Day of the Week




RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 27
KA CRASHES BY TIME OF DAY
Light Condition (N=4,962)
When analyzing all crashes in the City of 2.3% < 1%
Phoenix’s local and arterial roads together, Dark- Lighted
only 26% of them occur in dark conditions
(Figure 7). However, 40% of KA crashes were Dark - Not lighted
reported to have occurred in dark conditions.
32.7% Dark- Unknown lighting
Figure 35 shows that KA crashes are
overrepresented in non-daylight conditions. Dawn
55.3%
Daylight

3.1% Dusk
4.1%
Not available
2.1%

Figure 35: Share of Fatal and Serious Injuries Crashes by
Light Condition, 2015-2019


Dark Dawn Daylight Dusk Not available








Number of KA Crashes





0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Figure 36: Number of Fatal and Serious Injuries Crashes, by Hour and Lighting Condition

KA CRASHES BY LOCATION
The same criteria to determine the relationship to the closest junction applied to all crashes was applied
to KA crashes. Figure 37 shows the crash location by year; about 50% of KA crashes were related to
intersections or interchanges.




RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 28
Intersection/Interchange Non-intersection/Non-Interchange




44% 49% 47% 47%
53%




56% 51% 53% 53%
47%



2015 (N=901) 2016 (N=1,168) 2017 (N=1,077) 2018 (N=979) 2019 (N=837)

Figure 37: Number of Fatal and Serious Injuries Crashes, by Relation to the Intersection
When comparing the collision manner on intersection-related serious crashes (Figure 38) and all crashes
(Figure 11), it can be seen that while rear-end crashes are the second most common intersection-related
crashes, they represent less than 10% of serious crashes. The most common collision manner of
intersection-related KA crashes were left-turn and angle crashes.




34% 34% 37% 34% 34%


Left turn

Angle (front to side)(other than left turn)

Other
29% 29% 28% 29%
27%
Rear end

Single vehicle

14% Head on
18% 16% 18% 18%
Sideswipe same direction
10%
8% 10% 6% 8%
Sideswipe opposite direction
7% 5%
6% 5% 7%
4% 3% 2% 4%
2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 1%
1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
(N=503) (N=596) (N=566) (N=464) (N=445)

Figure 38: Number of Intersection/Interchange-Related Fatal and Serious Injuries Crashes, by Collision Manner



RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 29
KA CRASHES BY BEHAVIOR
Figure 39 depicts the frequency of unrestrained driving and speed violation in serious injury and fatal injury
crashes. Crashes involving unrestrained drivers represent 16% of KA crashes, and speed-related crashes
represent 29% of KA crashes.

All KA Crashes Unrestrained Driver Speed violation

1,400 100%
1,200
80%




Number of Crashes
1,000
800 60%

600 35.1%
28.8% 28.0% 30.1% 40%
25.8%
20%
19.8% 14.6% 15.4% 16.0% 16.7%
0 0%
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Figure 39: Frequency of Unrestrained Driving and Speed Violation in KA Crashes




RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 30
COMPARISON TO STATEWIDE AND REGIONAL SAFETY TRENDS
Nationwide summaries of all crashes are available from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) Annual Report Tables. NHTSA reports on a yearly basis crash summaries by diverse aspects, such
as injury severity, first harmful event, and collision manner.
The Arizona Strategic Traffic Safety Plan (ADOT STSP), published in October 2019, summarizes crash data
from the ACIS database from 2009 to 2018. The crash statistics in the ADOT STSP are primarily reported at
the person-level, which varies from the RTSIMS reporting, which is primarily at the crash-level. Furthermore,
the ADOT STSP does not make any distinction between local roads and freeways while RTSIMS reports (for
the purpose of this summary) focus on local and arterial roads only. For the purposes of this comparison,
statewide data at the crash-level was retrieved from the ACIS database.
From 2015 to 2018, 43% of the MAG Region’s local and arterial road collisions were registered in the City of
Phoenix (Figure 40). In terms of population, City of Phoenix residents represent 36% of Maricopa County’s
population. Figure 41 compares the injury severity of collisions reported in the state of Arizona, MAG Region
local and arterial roads, and City of Phoenix local and arterial roads. The results indicate that the fatality
rate (at the crash level) is rather similar among the geographies; from 2015 to 2018, 0.6% of all crashes
reported on local and arterial roads were fatal crashes, both in the City of Phoenix and in the MAG Region,
at the state level, about 0.7% of all reported crashes were fatal.

AZ - All Roads MAG - Local and Arterial Roads Phoenix - Local and Arterial Roads

140,000 126,845 127,534 127,086 129,782
116,609 ↑11%
120,000 from 2015




Number of Crashes
100,000

80,000 ↑10%
from 2015
60,000 71,172
71,357 70,764
64,284
40,000 ↑18%
from 2015
20,000 30,912 31,106 31,026 31,827
27,006
-
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Figure 40: Total Crashes Comparison of State of Arizona, MAG Region, and City of Phoenix




RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 31
Arizona - All Roads MAG - Local and Phoenix - Local and
(N=489,074) Arterials Arterials (N=120,050)
(N=277,577)
3% 0.7% 3% 0.6% 3% 0.6%
No injury
12% 11% 11%
Possible injury
Minor injury 15% 16% 17%
69% 69% 68%
Serious injury
Fatal

Figure 41: Crash Severity Comparison of State of Arizona, MAG Region, and City of Phoenix (2015-2018)
In the same period, fatal crashes in the City of Phoenix corresponded to 46.6% of the MAG Region’s fatal
crashes. Figure 42 shows a similar comparison for fatal crashes registered on the two areas, in addition to
the total crashes in the state of Arizona. Figure 43 shows the number of fatalities (person-level) registered
per year in the state of Arizona and the City of Phoenix. During the five years under study, fatalities on the
percentage is slightly lower than the share of Arizona residents living in Phoenix in the same period (23%).

AZ - All Roads MAG - Local and Arterial Roads Phoenix - Local and Arterial Roads
948 916 911
810 865




Number of Crashes
435 418 467
192 202 230 172


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019*

*Note: MAG data was sourced from the MAG Strategic Transportation Safety Plan, which analyzed data from 2009 to
2018. Data from 2019 was not available for comparison.

Figure 42: Fatal Crashes Comparison of Arizona, Maricopa County, and City of Phoenix

Arizona - All Roads City of Phoenix - Local and Arterial Roads




Number of Individuals
952 998 1,011 980



201 212 245 180


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Figure 43: Total Number of Fatalities (Persons) per Year Comparison, Arizona and City of Phoenix




RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 32
From 2018 to 2019, the number of fatalities in Arizona decreased by 3%. Fatalities in the City of Phoenix
(local and arterial roads) decreased by 26% from 2018 to 2019 (Figure 43); however, the year-to-year
fluctuation in this data does not indicate a clear trend. National statistics on 2019 fatalities and percent
change trends from 2018 are shown in Figure 44.




Figure 44: 2019 Fatalities and Percent Changes From 2018, by State (Person-Level).
(Source: FARS Data, NHTSA Graph)




RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 33
PEDESTRIANS
A large share of traffic fatalities involve pedestrians. Figure 45 shows that the State of Arizona was above
the national average, with pedestrians accounting for approximately 22% of 2019 fatalities. In the City of
Phoenix, the share of fatalities that is represented by pedestrians grew from 37% in 2015 to 44% in 2019
(Figure 46).




Figure 45: Percentage of Total Fatalities Involving Pedestrians, by State (Persons)
Source: FARS Data, NHTSA Graph
US - All Roads Arizona - All Roads Maricopa County* - All Roads Phoenix - Local and Arterial Roads

44% 45% 46% 44%
37%




Share of Total Fatalities
34%
31% 17%
15% 28%
16% 17% 22%
18% 16%
26% 20% 23% 24% 30%




2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
*Note: Maricopa County information obtained from ACIS database.
Figure 46: Share of Total Fatalities Who Were Pedestrians, Comparison across Geographies



RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 34
Although the MAG STSP data does not exclude freeway crashes, an analysis of the data found that 98% of
total pedestrian crashes in the 10-year studied period (2009-2018) occurred off-freeway, on the local and
arterial roadway network. The analysis also found that the same percentage was true for bicycle-related
crashes. Therefore; the MAG STSP and RTSIMS datasets are reasonably similar for comparison purposes.
As shown in Figure 47, The percentage of pedestrian-related crashes was found to be 1.1% in all United
States, 1.1% in the State of Arizona, 1.7% in the MAG region, and 2.5% in the City of Phoenix.
Phoenix represents 36% of the County’s population and about 43% of local and arterial road crashes;
however, 63% of Maricopa County’s pedestrian-related crashes occurred in the City of Phoenix’s local and
arterial roads.
US - All Roads Arizona - All Roads MAG All Roads Phoenix - Local and Arterial Roads

2.6% 2.7% 2.6%
2.5%
2.3%




Share of All Crashes
1.9%
1.1%
1.3% 1.7%
1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1%
0.8%
1.7% 1.2% 1.3% 1.3%
1.6%




2015 2016 2017 2018 2 0 1 9*

*Note: MAG data was sourced from the MAG Strategic Transportation Safety Plan, which analyzed data from 2009 to 2018. Data from
2019 was not available for comparison.

Figure 47: Pedestrian Crashes per Year, Comparison across Geographies
In terms of injury severity, the distribution of pedestrian-related crashes is very similar in the MAG Region
and the City of Phoenix (Figure 48). The majority of crashes (63%) of both datasets result in possible or
minor injury, while nearly one-quarter (22-23%) result in serious injury, and about 12% result in fatal injury.
Only a very small portion of pedestrian-related crashes result in no injuries (2-3%).
Phoenix - Local
Arizona - All Roads MAG - All Roads
and Arterials
(N=5,470) (N=4,803)
(N=3,026)
3% 3% 2%

No injury 12% 12%
15%
Possible injury 23% 24% 23%
21% 22% 23%
Minor injury
Serious injury
38% 39% 40%
Fatal



Figure 48: Severity of Pedestrian Crashes, Comparison across Geographies (2015-2018)




RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 35
BICYCLISTS
As shown in Figure 49, the percentage of crashes involving bicyclists was similar between the two areas,
with an average of 1.5% of total crashes in the MAG Region and 1.5% in the City of Phoenix. The injury
severity distribution of bicyclist-related crashes is also similar between the two areas, as shown in Figure
50. The majority of crashes (78-79%) of both datasets result in possible or minor injury, 13% result in serious
injury, and 2% result in fatal injury. About 6-7% of bicyclist-related crashes resulted in no injuries.

US - All Roads Arizona - All Roads MAG All Roads Phoenix - Local and Arterial Roads
1.6% 1.5% 1.5%
1.6% 1.6% 1.5% 1.4%
1.2%
1.1%




Share of All Crashes
1.0%
0.8% 1.1% 1.0% 0.8%
0.9%
0.9% 0.8% 1.0%
0.7%




2015 2016 2017 2018 2 0 1 *9
*Note: MAG data was sourced from the MAG Strategic Transportation Safety Plan, which analyzed data from 2009 to 2018. Data
from 2019 was not available for comparison.

Figure 49: Bicycle Crashes per Year, Comparison across Geographies



Arizona - All Roads MAG - All Roads Phoenix - Local and
(N=5,101) (N=4,185) Arterials (N=1,777)

2.2% 2.0% 1.9%
No injury
6%
7% 7%
13%
13% Possible injury
13%

29% 31% 33% Minor injury

Serious injury
47% 46%
49%
Fatal



Figure 50: Severity of Bicycle Crashes, Comparison across Geographies (2015-2018)




RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 36
OLDER DRIVERS (65 and older)
Other vulnerable user groups were also analyzed, including older drivers and younger drivers. Figure 51
compares the number of crashes involving older drivers on all roads of the MAG Region and City of Phoenix’s
local and arterial roads. Approximately 28% of the older driver crashes in the MAG Region were registered
on City of Phoenix’s local and arterial roads.

Older Driver Crashes - MAG All Roads Older Driver Crashes - Phoenix Local and Arterial Roads



14,712 15,244
14,222
13,098




Number of Crashes
4,087 4,107 4,279 4,405
3,547




2015 2016 2017 2018 2 0 1 9*

*Note: 2019 data was not available for the MAG Region per its Strategic Transportation Safety Plan.
Figure 51: Older Driver Crashes per Year, MAG Region, and City of Phoenix
Figure 52 shows a breakdown by injury severity for crashes on local and arterial roads involving older
drivers in the period of 2015-2018. Compared to crashes involving all age groups, the percentage of fatal
and serious injury crashes remained the same, with a slight shift from no injury to possible and minor injury
crashes. The trends of older drivers are quite similar between the MAG Region and City of Phoenix.

MAG (N=57,276) Phoenix (N=16,020)
3% 0.6% 3% 0.7%


No injury
12% 13%
Possible injury
17% 18% Minor injury
67% 65% Serious injury
Fatal




Figure 52: Severity of Older Driver Crashes, MAG Region and Phoenix (2015-2018)




RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 37
YOUNGER DRIVERS (24 and below)
Figure 53 compares the number of crashes involving younger drivers on all roads of the MAG Region and
roads represented about 31% of crashes involving younger drivers in the MAG Region.

Young Driver Crashes - MAG All Roads Young Driver Crashes - Phoenix Local and Arterials


41,849 41,230 40,718
38,098




Number of Crashes 12,897 12,828 12,594 12,944
11,250




2015 2016 2017 2018 2019*

*Note: MAG data was sourced from the MAG Strategic Transportation Safety Plan, which analyzed data from 2009 to 2018. Data from
2019 was not available for comparison.

Figure 53: Younger Driver Crashes per Year, MAG Region, and City of Phoenix


Figure 54 shows that the severity of crashes on local and arterial roads involving younger drivers was similar
in both geographies. In addition, the younger driver crashes are generally consistent with the overall crash
summaries of each area for all age groups.


MAG (161,895) Phoenix (N=49,569)
2% 0.4% 0.5%
2%
No injury
12% 11%
Possible injury

16% Minor injury
17%
Serious injury
70% 70%
Fatal



Figure 54: Severity of Younger Driver Crashes, MAG Region and Phoenix (2015-2018)




RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 38
CONCLUSION
Crash queries were obtained through the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) software tool for
crash analysis, the Regional Transportation Safety Information Management System (RTSIMS). This report
used existing tools to conduct a safety analysis of the past five years, and compared trends to regional and
statewide data. The following key findings are based on a review of RTSIMS crash data from 2015 to 2019:
• An annual average 30,376 crashes per year were reported during the five year study period. This
equates to 83 crashes per day.
• Crashes on arterial and local roadways in the City of Phoenix increased by a rate of about 4.4% per
year. This trend suggests that the crash frequency increased at a higher rate than the City’s
population, which in the same period grew 1.5% per year, on average.
• Most crashes result in no injury (70%), approximately one-quarter result in possible or minor injury
(27%), 2.6% result in serious injury, and 0.6% result in fatal injury. This equates to two serious injury
crashes occurring each day, and one fatal crash occurring every other day.
• The percentage of fatal and serious injury crashes has remained generally consistent over the past
five years; however the percentage of no injury crashes has steadily increased over time.
• Rear end crashes were the most common collision manner, followed by left-turn crashes. These
two crash types account for about half of all crashes.
• For fatal and serious injury crashes, the “Other” collision manner was reported most frequent
(25%), which is commonly selected for crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists. Other frequent
crash types for fatal and serious injury crashes were left-turn (23%) and angle (21%).
• Crashes involving unrestrained drivers (i.e, lack of seatbelt, helmet use) have reduced in frequency.
• Due to lack of protection on impact, pedestrians and bicyclists (vulnerable users) are more
frequently seriously injured when involved in motor vehicle crashes. In the City of Phoenix, crashes
involving bicyclists and pedestrians represent nearly half (48%) of all fatal crashes.
• A greater share of pedestrian crashes is occurring in Phoenix compared to other agencies within
the MAG Region. Phoenix represents 36% of Maricopa County’s population and about 43% of the
County’s local and arterial road crashes; however, 63% of County crashes involving pedestrians
occurred on City of Phoenix’s local and arterial roads.
• Bicyclist crashes are occurring at a greater rate in Phoenix than in other agencies within the MAG
Region. About 43% of all crashes involving bicyclists in Maricopa County occurred on City of
Phoenix’s local and arterial roads.
• For all crash severities, the majority of crashes occur during daylight hours (71%), with the
remaining 29% of crashes occurring during dawn, dusk, or dark conditions.
• A correlation exists between injury severity and lighting condition; fatal and serious injury crashes
occurred more frequently during dawn, dusk, and dark conditions (45%) compared to daylight
conditions (55%).
The MAG RTSIMS tool provided the ability to retrieve data quickly for numerous Citywide statistics. During
the analysis process, several discrepancies were identified when comparing to past Phoenix data, which is
common when comparing different datasets. The City of Phoenix conducts a robust data scrubbing process
each year, which confirms crashes exist within the City of Phoenix boundaries, omits freeway crashes, and
reviews characteristics of crashes in detail to correct the manner of collision if originally mis-coded. The
RTSIMS crash data is not scrubbed, and comes directly from ADOT ACIS. These differences, along with
variations in the querying process, are acknowledged as part of this report. This data contained in this



RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 39
report is intended to provide preliminary information; later stages of this project will modernize the existing




RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 40
APPENDIX A: RTSIMS QUERY OUTPUTS




RTSIMS Safety Review
Road Safety Action Plan | Page 41
7/19/2021 Years:
Safety Analysis Report 2015,2016,2017,2018,2019


All Arterials and Local Roads Crashes by Year (Phoenix)
35K



30K



25K




Number of Crashes
Total Crashes
20K
Total Injuries
Total Fatalities
15K



10K


5K



0K
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year




Year All Injury Fatal Total Total
Crashes Crashes Crashes Injuries Fatalities

2015 27,006 9,023 155 14,120 166
2016 30,912 9,701 192 14,688 201
2017 31,106 9,641 202 14,463 212
2018 31,026 8,527 230 12,637 245
2019 31,827 8,232 172 12,008 180




7/19/2021 Years:
Safety Analysis Report 2015,2016,2017,2018,2019



All Arterials and Local Roads Crashes by Year
(Phoenix)
24K

No Injury




Number of Crashes
20K Possible Injury
Non-Incapacitating
Incapacitating Injury
16K Fatal
Unknown

12K



8K



4K



0K
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


Year

Year No Possible Non Incapacitating Fatal Unknown Total
Injury Injury Incapacitating Injury

2015 17,828 5,508 2,769 746 155 0 27,006
2016 21,019 5,018 3,707 976 192 0 30,912
2017 21,263 5,139 3,627 875 202 0 31,106
2018 22,269 4,400 3,378 749 230 0 31,026
2019 23,423 4,509 3,058 665 172 0 31,827




7/19/2021 Years:
Safety Analysis Report 2015,2016,2017,2018,2019


All Arterials and Local Roads Crashes by Month (Phoenix)
14K


12K


10K




Number of Crashes
8K Total Crashes
Total Injuries
Total Fatalities
6K


4K


2K


0K
January March May July September November
February April June August October December

Month




Month All Injury Fatal Total Total
Crashes Crashes Crashes Injuries Fatalities

January 12,337 3,781 80 5,668 87
February 12,553 3,726 77 5,602 83
March 13,809 4,188 102 6,320 107
April 13,146 3,948 83 5,978 88
May 12,474 3,761 71 5,679 75
June 11,359 3,334 84 5,035 86
July 10,920 3,239 65 4,901 67
August 13,199 3,800 78 5,732 83
September 12,736 3,786 67 5,698 68
October 13,267 4,028 85 6,009 93
November 13,065 3,825 75 5,789 80
December 13,012 3,708 84 5,505 87




7/19/2021 Years:
Safety Analysis Report 2015,2016,2017,2018,2019


All Arterials and Local Roads Crashes by Weekday (Phoenix)
28K



24K



20K




Number of Crashes
Total Crashes
16K
Total Injuries
Total Fatalities
12K



8K


4K



0K
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

Weekday




Weekday All Injury Fatal Total Total
Crashes Crashes Crashes Injuries Fatalities

Sunday 13,603 3,924 148 6,163 165
Monday 21,920 6,501 97 9,677 104
Tuesday 24,139 7,352 128 10,925 128
Wednesday 23,994 7,462 115 11,067 124
Thursday 24,394 7,367 151 11,059 162
Friday 26,020 7,533 153 11,430 157
Saturday 17,807 4,985 159 7,595 164




7/19/2021 Years:
Safety Analysis Report 2015,2016,2017,2018,2019


All Arterials and Local Roads Crashes by Hour (Phoenix)
16K


14K


12K




Number of Crashes
10K
Total Crashes
Total Injuries
8K Total Fatalities


6K


4K


2K


0K
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Hour




Hour All Injury Fatal Total Total
Crashes Crashes Crashes Injuries Fatalities

0 1,846 492 43 686 45
1 1,438 357 43 515 49
2 1,581 415 31 603 34
3 1,133 282 15 384 15
4 1,424 367 24 492 26
5 2,481 791 24 1,123 24
6 5,128 1,709 46 2,551 48
7 10,326 3,447 22 5,498 22
8 8,515 2,684 17 4,081 18
9 5,832 1,949 21 3,008 27
10 5,866 1,962 20 2,995 21
11 6,934 2,247 23 3,454 24
12 8,150 2,553 22 3,902 22
13 8,296 2,485 28 3,847 28
14 10,377 2,924 30 4,396 32
15 13,166 3,529 33 5,222 34
16 14,120 3,817 48 5,662 50
17 13,608 3,668 47 5,387 48
18 10,005 2,944 67 4,493 68
19 6,286 1,875 81 2,799 88



Hour All Injury Fatal Total Total
Crashes Crashes Crashes Injuries Fatalities

20 5,054 1,584 88 2,270 91
21 4,345 1,332 81 1,994 88
22 3,508 1,027 51 1,553 56
23 2,458 684 46 1,001 46




7/19/2021 Years:
Safety Analysis Report 2015,2016,2017,2018,2019


All Arterials and Local Roads Crashes by Collision Manner (Phoenix)
45K
40K
35K
30K
25K




Number of Crashes
20K
15K Total Crashes
10K Total Injuries
5K Total Fatalities
0K
N _E ER N
W HIC TI
N
TI
N
O_
E EA
R N R on H EA
KN LE O O SI D TH _T tto
O EC EC D O_ EA O U si D _O
GL R R LE d
UN E_ E_ E_ _T _T R FT turn (o e) N
VE D D EA R )
IR IR R EA th
SI M SI R R er
N IP T th
E_ _O an
SA PP le
O ft
ES IP (fr
W E LE
SID ES G
W AN
SID

Collision Manner




Collision Manner All Injury Fatal Total Total
Crashes Crashes Crashes Injuries Fatalities

UNKNOWN 853 208 21 267 23
SINGLE_VEHICLE 10,875 2,824 114 3,301 129
SIDESWIPE_SAME_DIRECTION 20,560 2,312 11 3,071 13
SIDESWIPE_OPPOSITE_DIRECTION 2,791 530 4 801 5
REAR_TO_SIDE 938 88 0 123 0
REAR_TO_REAR 1,295 315 0 483 0
REAR_END 44,146 12,372 42 18,618 43
OTHER 5,797 3,264 491 3,718 504
LEFT_TURN 34,390 12,247 117 20,044 123
HEAD_ON 3,266 1,340 43 2,226 50
ANGLE (front to side)(other than left turn) 26,966 9,624 108 15,264 114




7/19/2021 Years:
Safety Analysis Report 2015,2016,2017,2018,2019



All Arterials and Local Roads Crashes by Collision
Manner (Phoenix)
35K
30K
No Injury
25K




Number of Crashes
Possible Injury
20K Non-Incapacitating
15K Incapacitating Injury
10K Fatal

5K Unknown

0K
N N O D EA E M E_ TI O
tu _O _T TH _E D N
rn N R O_ IR EC
) EA UR ER O_ SI SIN TI
left D REA R D EC GL E_ O N
H LE _T VE
ha FT R R_T EA E_ H IC
n DIR U
LE
ot he REA R N KN
rt R SI O W
T _S N
si _O A
de)( PP IP
O E
on IP ES
tto E W
(fr ES SID
LE W
G SID
AN



Collision Manner

Collision Manner No Possible Non Incapacitating Fatal Unknown Total
Injury Injury Incapacitating Injury

UNKNOWN 624 92 83 33 21 0 853


SINGLE_VEHICLE 7,937 1,092 1,296 436 114 0 10,875


SIDESWIPE_SAME_DI 18,237 1,434 741 137 11 0 20,560
RECTION

SIDESWIPE_OPPOSIT 2,257 273 206 51 4 0 2,791
E_DIRECTION

REAR_TO_SIDE 850 51 32 5 0 0 938


REAR_TO_REAR 980 214 87 14 0 0 1,295


REAR_END 31,732 8,394 3,519 459 42 0 44,146


OTHER 2,042 1,118 1,464 682 491 0 5,797


LEFT_TURN 22,026 6,375 4,824 1,048 117 0 34,390


HEAD_ON 1,883 547 568 225 43 0 3,266


ANGLE (front to side) 17,234 4,984 3,719 921 108 0 26,966
(other than left turn)




7/19/2021 Years:
Safety Analysis Report 2015,2016,2017,2018,2019


All Arterials and Local Roads Crashes by Age (Phoenix)
60K
Note: This data reflects the age of Driver #1.

50K




Number of Crashes
40K

Total Crashes
Total Injuries
30K
Total Fatalities


20K



10K



0K
0-4 10-14 20-24 30-34 40-44 50-54 60-64 70-74 80-84 90-94 100-104 115-119 255-259
5-9 15-19 25-29 35-39 45-49 55-59 65-69 75-79 85-89 95-99 110-114 250-254

Age




Age All Injury Fatal Total Total
Crashes Crashes Crashes Injuries Fatalities

0-4 15,012 5,044 58 10,327 79
5-9 13,433 4,610 57 9,807 72
10-14 13,047 4,686 66 9,808 74
15-19 41,762 13,697 216 24,805 275
20-24 52,790 16,849 312 28,302 352
25-29 46,706 14,698 255 24,645 283
30-34 37,610 12,038 194 19,859 212
35-39 32,390 10,307 189 17,208 207
40-44 28,351 9,012 150 14,790 159
45-49 27,132 8,924 146 14,531 153
50-54 24,501 8,072 186 13,036 192
55-59 21,184 6,869 148 10,821 153
60-64 15,723 5,305 136 8,482 138
65-69 11,171 3,798 91 6,159 93
70-74 7,282 2,520 64 4,168 64
75-79 4,441 1,567 55 2,594 57
80-84 2,528 887 31 1,510 31
85-89 1,327 465 20 755 21
90-94 386 134 8 225 9
95-99 60 23 1 40 1



Age All Injury Fatal Total Total
Crashes Crashes Crashes Injuries Fatalities

100-104 4 2 1 8 1
110-114 1,088 260 22 441 22
115-119 2,525 1,137 163 2,842 178
250-254 151 38 0 58 0
255-259 32,424 6,618 43 8,987 45




7/19/2021 Years:
Safety Analysis Report 2015,2016,2017,2018,2019


All Arterials and Local Roads Crashes by Sex (Phoenix)
240K



200K




Number of Crashes
160K
Total Crashes
Total Injuries
120K Total Fatalities



80K



40K



0K
F M U

Sex




Sex All Injury Fatal Total Total
Crashes Crashes Crashes Injuries Fatalities

18,466 3,093 43 3,885 45
F 188,984 63,102 841 111,383 937
M 221,819 70,564 1,581 117,777 1,731
U 3,759 801 147 1,163 158




7/19/2021 Years:
Safety Analysis Report 2015,2016,2017,2018,2019


All Arterials and Local Roads Crashes by Injury Severity (Phoenix)
120K



100K




Number of Crashes
80K
Total Crashes
Total Injuries
60K Total Fatalities



40K



20K



0K
O C B A K

Injury Severity




Injury Severity All Injury Fatal Total Total
Crashes Crashes Crashes Injuries Fatalities

O 105,802 0 0 0 0
C 24,574 24,574 0 35,153 0
B 16,539 16,539 0 25,533 0
A 4,011 4,011 0 6,710 0
K 951 0 951 520 1,004




7/19/2021 Years:
Safety Analysis Report 2015,2016,2017,2018,2019


All Arterials and Local Roads Older Driver Crashes by Month (Phoenix)








Number of Crashes
1200 Total Crashes
Total Injuries
Total Fatalities








January March May July September November
February April June August October December

Month




Month All Injury Fatal Total Total
Crashes Crashes Crashes Injuries Fatalities

January 1,687 556 11 874 11
February 1,767 575 14 885 14
March 1,912 619 12 1,004 14
April 1,705 590 7 925 7
May 1,613 556 11 881 11
June 1,426 457 12 748 13
July 1,444 463 9 759 9
August 1,697 536 9 856 9
September 1,685 539 14 854 14
October 1,859 595 18 955 18
November 1,770 560 7 864 7
December 1,860 589 14 914 14




7/19/2021 Years:
Safety Analysis Report 2015,2016,2017,2018,2019


All Arterials and Local Roads Younger Driver Crashes by Month (Phoenix)







Number of Crashes

Total Crashes
Total Injuries
Total Fatalities








January March May July September November
February April June August October December

Month




Month All Injury Fatal Total Total
Crashes Crashes Crashes Injuries Fatalities

January 4,975 1,579 31 2,538 33
February 5,225 1,567 23 2,477 29
March 5,685 1,724 35 2,749 38
April 5,496 1,607 29 2,627 30
May 5,180 1,557 28 2,471 30
June 4,604 1,386 26 2,195 28
July 4,383 1,297 15 2,053 17
August 5,494 1,587 26 2,556 29
September 5,317 1,618 15 2,563 15
October 5,516 1,703 22 2,686 30
November 5,380 1,576 24 2,536 26
December 5,258 1,501 26 2,375 28




7/19/2021 Years:
Safety Analysis Report 2015,2016,2017,2018,2019


All Arterials and Local Roads Pedestrian Crashes by Month (Phoenix)







Number of Crashes

Total Crashes
Total Injuries
Total Fatalities







January March May July September November
February April June August October December

Month




Month All Injury Fatal Total Total
Crashes Crashes Crashes Injuries Fatalities

January 355 310 40 342 40
February 300 260 35 293 35
March 365 314 44 372 45
April 341 294 35 313 35
May 282 240 32 269 34
June 239 200 36 227 37
July 226 192 30 209 31
August 271 237 29 261 30
September 294 254 34 284 35
October 371 325 40 362 40
November 401 361 37 403 38
December 401 356 39 387 39




7/19/2021 Years:
Safety Analysis Report 2015,2016,2017,2018,2019


All Arterials and Local Roads Bicyclist Crashes by Month (Phoenix)








Number of Crashes
120 Total Crashes
Total Injuries
Total Fatalities








January March May July September November
February April June August October December

Month




Month All Injury Fatal Total Total
Crashes Crashes Crashes Injuries Fatalities

January 178 163 4 169 4
February 184 169 0 172 0
March 197 182 6 188 6
April 194 179 5 184 5
May 186 175 2 179 2
June 138 128 3 129 3
July 132 128 1 129 1
August 182 169 3 174 3
September 186 171 6 175 6
October 189 177 3 184 3
November 169 158 6 162 6
December 140 134 2 138 2




7/19/2021 Years:
Safety Analysis Report 2015,2016,2017,2018,2019


All Arterials and Local Roads Older Driver Crashes by Hour (Phoenix)








Number of Crashes
1200 Total Crashes
Total Injuries
Total Fatalities









0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Hour




Hour All Injury Fatal Total Total
Crashes Crashes Crashes Injuries Fatalities

0 90 30 2 46 2
1 35 10 2 14 2
2 36 19 0 25 0
3 33 10 0 14 0
4 59 15 4 24 4
5 186 72 2 117 2
6 467 170 4 280 4
7 1,000 373 3 652 3
8 1,146 399 5 629 5
9 1,168 408 4 616 4
10 1,321 468 8 734 8
11 1,468 504 4 849 5
12 1,639 569 9 893 9
13 1,609 501 4 818 4
14 1,820 521 14 811 15
15 1,976 571 6 877 6
16 1,826 535 7 848 7
17 1,614 471 17 777 17
18 1,183 402 11 611 12
19 702 246 11 386 11



Hour All Injury Fatal Total Total
Crashes Crashes Crashes Injuries Fatalities

20 449 153 10 226 10
21 298 96 5 138 5
22 201 61 2 88 2
23 99 31 4 46 4




7/19/2021 Years:
Safety Analysis Report 2015,2016,2017,2018,2019


All Arterials and Local Roads Younger Driver Crashes by Hour (Phoenix)










Number of Crashes
Total Crashes
Total Injuries
Total Fatalities








0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Hour




Hour All Injury Fatal Total Total
Crashes Crashes Crashes Injuries Fatalities

0 827 233 16 359 18
1 586 165 14 266 20
2 602 180 8 282 11
3 408 123 3 179 3
4 471 138 6 193 8
5 814 274 7 428 7
6 1,850 654 11 1,022 12
7 4,119 1,383 8 2,294 8
8 3,062 990 6 1,599 7
9 1,980 660 10 1,078 14
10 2,036 696 10 1,122 10
11 2,557 846 11 1,359 12
12 3,285 1,031 10 1,649 10
13 3,319 1,015 10 1,634 10
14 4,353 1,212 12 1,995 13
15 5,606 1,547 11 2,417 12
16 5,916 1,634 12 2,542 12
17 6,007 1,592 9 2,468 10
18 4,519 1,310 15 2,114 15
19 2,854 824 23 1,356 27



Hour All Injury Fatal Total Total
Crashes Crashes Crashes Injuries Fatalities

20 2,357 703 21 1,066 24
21 2,115 672 28 1,089 28
22 1,728 484 21 786 24
23 1,142 336 18 529 18




7/19/2021 Years:
Safety Analysis Report 2015,2016,2017,2018,2019


All Arterials and Local Roads Pedestrian Crashes by Hour (Phoenix)










Number of Crashes
Total Crashes
Total Injuries
Total Fatalities








0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Hour




Hour All Injury Fatal Total Total
Crashes Crashes Crashes Injuries Fatalities

0 80 57 23 63 23
1 56 39 16 46 16
2 46 34 12 44 12
3 33 26 7 31 7
4 48 41 7 44 7
5 69 58 11 61 11
6 173 152 18 165 18
7 204 194 7 237 7
8 144 139 4 154 4
9 122 113 9 124 9
10 116 113 2 118 3
11 107 97 3 116 3
12 106 101 2 117 2
13 114 106 6 122 6
14 172 163 6 184 7
15 229 218 6 230 6
16 232 216 8 239 8
17 243 224 11 252 11
18 343 296 41 329 41
19 337 278 56 304 58



Hour All Injury Fatal Total Total
Crashes Crashes Crashes Injuries Fatalities

20 316 245 60 263 62
21 241 184 53 197 53
22 197 156 38 169 40
23 118 93 25 113 25




7/19/2021 Years:
Safety Analysis Report 2015,2016,2017,2018,2019


All Arterials and Local Roads Bicyclist Crashes by Hour (Phoenix)







Number of Crashes
Total Crashes
Total Injuries
120 Total Fatalities









0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Hour




Hour All Injury Fatal Total Total
Crashes Crashes Crashes Injuries Fatalities

0 19 15 4 15 4
1 6 4 1 4 1
2 5 4 0 4 0
3 8 5 3 5 3
4 9 8 1 8 1
5 33 28 2 28 2
6 82 76 3 81 3
7 150 141 0 148 0
8 105 101 0 102 0
9 86 85 1 88 1
10 96 92 1 93 1
11 97 89 4 91 4
12 107 102 0 102 0
13 106 96 3 97 3
14 161 152 3 155 3
15 166 153 2 154 2
16 202 190 3 193 3
17 192 183 1 191 1
18 144 137 0 138 0
19 100 91 2 96 2



Hour All Injury Fatal Total Total
Crashes Crashes Crashes Injuries Fatalities

20 80 70 3 72 3
21 61 55 2 56 2
22 34 31 1 36 1
23 26 25 1 26 1




7/19/2021 Years:
Safety Analysis Report 2015,2016,2017,2018,2019

All Arterials and Local Roads Older Driver Crashes by Collision Manner (Phoenix)







Number of Crashes
2000 Total Crashes
Total Injuries
Total Fatalities
W
GL E_ N ER
_T N
KNSID IPE _S V EH TH (fr
U
O ES W A M IC LE O R on H
IP E_ E_D LE tt EA
UN O PP IR EC FT o si D
O SI TI O d _O
TE_D IR
N turn (o e) N
SIN
EC TI ) th
R O N er
EA R _T than
O_
R SID E left
ES EA R_T
W O_ R LE
SI EA R G
D R AN
EA R_E N D

Collision Manner




Collision Manner All Injury Fatal Total Total
Crashes Crashes Crashes Injuries Fatalities

UNKNOWN 50 20 1 26 1
SINGLE_VEHICLE 460 174 9 198 10
SIDESWIPE_SAME_DIRECTION 3,114 327 0 431 0
SIDESWIPE_OPPOSITE_DIRECTION 356 88 1 155 1
REAR_TO_SIDE 137 18 0 27 0
REAR_TO_REAR 173 57 0 96 0
REAR_END 5,451 1,769 12 2,774 12
OTHER 646 351 50 441 51
LEFT_TURN 5,308 2,050 28 3,430 28
HEAD_ON 383 177 11 346 11
ANGLE (front to side)(other than left turn) 4,347 1,604 26 2,595 27




7/19/2021 Years:
Safety Analysis Report 2015,2016,2017,2018,2019

All Arterials and Local Roads Younger Driver Crashes by Collision Manner (Phoenix)
20K


16K


12K




Number of Crashes
8K
Total Crashes
4K Total Injuries
Total Fatalities
0K
N _E ER N
W HIC TI
N
TI
N
O_
E EA
R N R on H EA
KN LE O O SI D TH _T tto
O EC EC D O_ EA O U si D _O
GL R R LE d
UN E_ E_ E_ _T _T R FT turn (o e) N
VE D D EA R )
IR IR R EA th
SI M SI R R er
N IP T th
E_ _O an
SA PP le
O ft
ES IP (fr
W E LE
SID ES G
W AN
SID

Collision Manner




Collision Manner All Injury Fatal Total Total
Crashes Crashes Crashes Injuries Fatalities

UNKNOWN 156 47 7 75 9
SINGLE_VEHICLE 3,453 988 27 1,210 36
SIDESWIPE_SAME_DIRECTION 7,296 879 8 1,240 10
SIDESWIPE_OPPOSITE_DIRECTION 1,005 210 2 344 3
REAR_TO_SIDE 293 35 0 50 0
REAR_TO_REAR 560 147 0 240 0
REAR_END 18,937 5,264 12 8,162 13
OTHER 1,532 694 109 902 116
LEFT_TURN 16,700 5,992 63 10,079 66
HEAD_ON 1,240 514 21 915 25
ANGLE (front to side)(other than left turn) 11,341 3,932 51 6,609 55




7/19/2021 Years:
Safety Analysis Report 2015,2016,2017,2018,2019

All Arterials and Local Roads Pedestrian Crashes by Collision Manner (Phoenix)







Number of Crashes
800 Total Crashes
Total Injuries
Total Fatalities
N _E ER N
W TI
N N
O_
E EA
N _T on H EA
TI R D TH
KN O O SI O_ UR tto D
O EC EC D R EA O
si _O
R LE
U tu de) N
N E_ E_ _T _T FT
D EA R rn (o
IR DIR R )
R EA th
M SI R R er
IP T th
E_ _O an
SA PP left
ES O (fr
W IP E LE
SID ES G
W AN
SID

Collision Manner




Collision Manner All Injury Fatal Total Total
Crashes Crashes Crashes Injuries Fatalities

UNKNOWN 95 91 2 98 2
SIDESWIPE_SAME_DIRECTION 76 71 0 82 0
SIDESWIPE_OPPOSITE_DIRECTION 43 41 0 47 0
REAR_TO_SIDE 10 10 0 10 0
REAR_TO_REAR 3 3 0 3 0
REAR_END 79 72 1 113 1
OTHER 2,374 1,923 420 2,076 427
LEFT_TURN 340 323 7 394 8
HEAD_ON 231 224 0 250 0
ANGLE (front to side)(other than left turn) 595 585 1 649 1




7/19/2021 Years:
Safety Analysis Report 2015,2016,2017,2018,2019


All Arterials and Local Roads Bicyclist Crashes by Collision Manner (Phoenix)








Number of Crashes
Total Crashes
200 Total Injuries
Total Fatalities
N _E ER N
W TI
N N
O_
E EA
N _T on H EA
TI R D TH
KN O O SI O_ UR tto D
O EC EC D R EA O
si _O
R LE
U tu de) N
N E_ E_ _T _T FT
D EA R rn (o
IR DIR R )
R EA th
M SI R R er
IP T th
E_ _O an
SA PP left
ES O (fr
W IP E LE
SID ES G
W AN
SID

Collision Manner




Collision Manner All Injury Fatal Total Total
Crashes Crashes Crashes Injuries Fatalities

UNKNOWN 22 21 0 21 0
SIDESWIPE_SAME_DIRECTION 78 73 0 77 0
SIDESWIPE_OPPOSITE_DIRECTION 21 19 0 19 0
REAR_TO_SIDE 2 1 0 1 0
REAR_TO_REAR 1 1 0 1 0
REAR_END 37 36 0 38 0
OTHER 887 817 41 836 41
LEFT_TURN 158 152 0 159 0
HEAD_ON 57 52 0 54 0
ANGLE (front to side)(other than left turn) 812 761 0 777 0




7/19/2021 Years:
Safety Analysis Report 2015,2016,2017,2018,2019


All Arterials and Local Roads Older Driver Crashes by
All Crashes Injury Severity (Phoenix) Injury Crashes




A 2.8% A 9.9%
B 12.3% B 39.2%
C 17.4% C 49.9%
K 0.7% K 1.0%
O 66.8% O 0.0%
T otal: 100.0% T otal: 100.0%




Fatal Crashes




A 0.0%
B 0.0%
C 0.0%
K 100.0%
O 0.0%
T otal: 100.0%




Injury Severity All Injury Crashes Fatal Total Total Fatalities
Crashes Crashes Injuries

O 13,652 0 0 0 0
C 3,545 3,545 0 5,248 0
B 2,518 2,518 0 4,127 0
A 572 572 0 1,044 0
K 138 0 138 100 141




7/19/2021 Years:
Safety Analysis Report 2015,2016,2017,2018,2019


All Arterials and Local Roads Younger Driver Crashes by
All Crashes Injury Severity (Phoenix) Injury Crashes




A 2.3% A 9.3%
B 10.8% B 37.5%
C 16.8% C 52.3%
K 0.5% K 1.0%
O 69.6% O 0.0%
T otal: 100.0% T otal: 100.0%




Fatal Crashes




A 0.0%
B 0.0%
C 0.0%
K 100.0%
O 0.0%
T otal: 100.0%




Injury Severity All Injury Crashes Fatal Total Total Fatalities
Crashes Crashes Injuries

O 43,511 0 0 0 0
C 10,472 10,472 0 15,597 0
B 6,776 6,776 0 11,170 0
A 1,454 1,454 0 2,773 0
K 300 0 300 286 333




7/19/2021 Years:
Safety Analysis Report 2015,2016,2017,2018,2019


All Arterials and Local Roads Pedestrian Crashes by
All Crashes Injury Severity (Phoenix) Injury Crashes




A 22.0% A 26.2%
B 40.3% B 44.7%
C 24.5% C 27.4%
K 11.2% K 1.7%
O 1.9% O 0.0%
T otal: 100.0% T otal: 100.0%




Fatal Crashes




A 0.0%
B 0.0%
C 0.0%
K 100.0%
O 0.0%
T otal: 100.0%




Injury Severity All Injury Crashes Fatal Total Total Fatalities
Crashes Crashes Injuries

O 72 0 0 0 0
C 944 944 0 1,021 0
B 1,551 1,551 0 1,664 0
A 848 848 0 974 0
K 431 0 431 63 439




7/19/2021 Years:
Safety Analysis Report 2015,2016,2017,2018,2019


All Arterials and Local Roads Bicyclist Crashes by Injury
All Crashes Severity (Phoenix) Injury Crashes




A 12.2% A 13.2%
B 46.8% B 50.5%
C 34.1% C 36.2%
K 2.0% K 0.1%
O 4.9% O 0.0%
T otal: 100.0% T otal: 100.0%




Fatal Crashes




A 0.0%
B 0.0%
C 0.0%
K 100.0%
O 0.0%
T otal: 100.0%




Injury Severity All Injury Crashes Fatal Total Total Fatalities
Crashes Crashes Injuries

O 101 0 0 0 0
C 707 707 0 718 0
B 972 972 0 1,001 0
A 254 254 0 262 0
K 41 0 41 2 41




7/19/2021 Years:
Safety Analysis Report 2015,2016,2017,2018,2019



All Arterials and Local Roads Older Driver Crashes by
Year (Phoenix)

No Injury




Number of Crashes
Possible Injury
Non-Incapacitating
2500 Incapacitating Injury
Fatal
Unknown








2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


Year

Year No Possible Non Incapacitating Fatal Unknown Total
Injury Injury Incapacitating Injury

2015 2,273 732 403 112 27 0 3,547
2016 2,604 750 559 146 28 0 4,087
2017 2,691 713 552 120 31 0 4,107
2018 2,932 687 519 111 30 0 4,279
2019 3,152 663 485 83 22 0 4,405




7/19/2021 Years:
Safety Analysis Report 2015,2016,2017,2018,2019



All Arterials and Local Roads Younger Driver Crashes
by Year (Phoenix)

No Injury




Number of Crashes
Possible Injury
8000 Non-Incapacitating
Incapacitating Injury
Fatal
6000 Unknown












2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


Year

Year No Possible Non Incapacitating Fatal Unknown Total
Injury Injury Incapacitating Injury

2015 7,302 2,448 1,163 285 52 0 11,250
2016 8,758 2,150 1,552 378 59 0 12,897
2017 8,773 2,179 1,501 313 62 0 12,828
2018 9,089 1,859 1,334 240 72 0 12,594
2019 9,589 1,836 1,226 238 55 0 12,944




7/19/2021 Years:
Safety Analysis Report 2015,2016,2017,2018,2019



All Arterials and Local Roads Pedestrian Crashes by
Year (Phoenix)

No Injury




Number of Crashes
Possible Injury
Non-Incapacitating
250 Incapacitating Injury
Fatal
Unknown








2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


Year

Year No Possible Non Incapacitating Fatal Unknown Total
Injury Injury Incapacitating Injury

2015 30 153 247 127 60 0 617
2016 24 164 306 189 88 0 771
2017 9 194 319 197 94 0 813
2018 9 186 332 187 111 0 825
2019 0 247 347 148 78 0 820




7/19/2021 Years:
Safety Analysis Report 2015,2016,2017,2018,2019



All Arterials and Local Roads Bicyclist Crashes by
Year (Phoenix)

No Injury




Number of Crashes
200 Possible Injury
Non-Incapacitating
Incapacitating Injury
160 Fatal
Unknown










2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


Year

Year No Possible Non Incapacitating Fatal Unknown Total
Injury Injury Incapacitating Injury

2015 35 157 185 53 8 0 438
2016 35 151 219 71 9 0 485
2017 17 152 235 52 14 0 470
2018 14 129 186 52 3 0 384
2019 0 118 147 26 7 0 298




7/19/2021 Years:
Safety Analysis Report 2015,2016,2017,2018,2019

All Arterials and Local Roads Car Involved Crashes by Year (Phoenix)
32K


28K


24K




Number of Crashes
20K
Total Crashes
Total Injuries
16K Total Fatalities


12K


8K


4K


0K
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year




Year All Injury Fatal Total Total
Crashes Crashes Crashes Injuries Fatalities

2015 25,962 8,605 137 13,604 147
2016 30,195 9,393 167 14,343 175
2017 30,426 9,330 175 14,120 185
2018 30,130 8,148 182 12,196 197
2019 30,847 7,897 147 11,620 155




7/19/2021 Years:
Safety Analysis Report 2015,2016,2017,2018,2019


All Arterials and Local Roads Truck Involved Crashes by Year (Phoenix)








Number of Crashes
3000 Total Crashes
Total Injuries
Total Fatalities









2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year




Year All Injury Fatal Total Total
Crashes Crashes Crashes Injuries Fatalities

2015 3,218 884 17 1,433 19
2016 2,487 511 19 746 19
2017 2,543 557 15 847 15
2018 3,807 905 18 1,347 18
2019 4,683 986 15 1,431 18




7/19/2021 Years:
Safety Analysis Report 2015,2016,2017,2018,2019


All Arterials and Local Roads Car Involved Crashes by
All Crashes Injury Severity (Phoenix) Injury Crashes




A 2.5% A 9.6%
B 10.6% B 37.3%
C 16.3% C 52.3%
K 0.5% K 0.7%
O 70.1% O 0.0%
T otal: 100.0% T otal: 100.0%




Fatal Crashes




A 0.0%
B 0.0%
C 0.0%
K 100.0%
O 0.0%
T otal: 100.0%




Injury Severity All Injury Crashes Fatal Total Total Fatalities
Crashes Crashes Injuries

O 103,379 0 0 0 0
C 23,984 23,984 0 34,446 0
B 15,709 15,709 0 24,602 0
A 3,680 3,680 0 6,343 0
K 808 0 808 492 859




7/19/2021 Years:
Safety Analysis Report 2015,2016,2017,2018,2019



All Arterials and Local Roads Car Involved Crashes
by Year (Phoenix)
24K

No Injury




Number of Crashes
20K Possible Injury
Non-Incapacitating
Incapacitating Injury
16K Fatal
Unknown

12K



8K



4K



0K
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019


Year

Year No Possible Non Incapacitating Fatal Unknown Total
Injury Injury Incapacitating Injury

2015 17,220 5,347 2,589 669 137 0 25,962
2016 20,635 4,930 3,558 905 167 0 30,195
2017 20,921 5,051 3,468 811 175 0 30,426
2018 21,800 4,275 3,200 673 182 0 30,130
2019 22,803 4,381 2,894 622 147 0 30,847




7/21/2021
Safety Analysis Report
Alcohol Impaired Drivers, 2015-2019 (Phoenix)







Number of Crashes
No Injury
Possible
300 Non-Incapacitating
Incapacitating
Fatal






0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Hour




Hour No Possible Non-
Injury Injury Incapacitating Incapacitating Fatal Unknown Total Total

0 394 83 108 43 42 0 670
1 399 105 104 39 71 0 718
2 522 135 122 86 47 0 912
3 271 52 93 40 27 0 483
4 151 56 70 18 19 0 314
5 104 51 49 13 10 0 227
6 95 41 37 16 18 0 207
7 95 17 25 18 5 0 160
8 65 26 30 7 11 0 139
9 69 28 26 16 4 0 143
10 63 20 39 11 7 0 140
11 100 27 19 11 7 0 164
12 79 29 29 4 6 0 147
13 121 30 67 2 6 0 226
14 179 87 42 30 4 0 342
15 273 59 76 33 7 0 448
16 316 103 87 50 19 0 575
17 376 121 148 42 21 0 708
18 479 147 140 68 38 0 872




Hour No Possible Non-
Injury Injury Incapacitating Incapacitating Fatal Unknown Total Total

19 472 135 158 99 70 0 934
20 472 164 176 69 91 0 972
21 529 158 155 80 96 0 1,018
22 489 139 156 99 70 0 953
23 404 112 149 67 61 0 793



Filters:
TrafficUnit.UnitType = DRIVER
Person.Physical = ALCOHOL
Year Between 2015 2019




7/21/2021
Safety Analysis Report
Impaired Drivers 2015 - 2019 (Phoenix)










Number of Crashes
No Injury
Possible
Non-Incapacitating
150 Incapacitating
Fatal






0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Hour




Hour No Possible Non-
Injury Injury Incapacitating Incapacitating Fatal Unknown Total Total

0 259 51 68 29 26 0 433
1 261 59 65 28 40 0 453
2 327 79 82 50 30 0 568
3 182 34 61 26 17 0 320
4 107 38 41 13 13 0 212
5 70 29 26 7 10 0 142
6 65 25 26 11 16 0 143
7 59 20 20 11 7 0 117
8 54 18 23 7 7 0 109
9 48 20 19 12 9 0 108
10 49 16 20 10 4 0 99
11 60 19 14 9 6 0 108
12 52 19 21 8 6 0 106
13 77 21 41 4 10 0 153
14 117 48 27 16 12 0 220
15 172 38 53 23 10 0 296
16 185 58 56 32 21 0 352
17 210 67 83 23 15 0 398
18 265 72 67 36 29 0 469




Hour No Possible Non-
Injury Injury Incapacitating Incapacitating Fatal Unknown Total Total

19 265 75 93 54 46 0 533
20 269 84 92 42 59 0 546
21 296 83 89 45 62 0 575
22 279 79 91 57 40 0 546
23 260 61 91 33 36 0 481



Filters:
Person.PersonType = DRIVER
Year Between 2015 2019
Person.Physical = ALCOHOL,DRUGS




7/21/2021
Safety Analysis Report
Signalized Intersection Left Turn and Angle Collisions 2015 - 2019 (Phoenix)
12K



10K




Number of Crashes
8K
No Injury
Possible
6K Non-Incapacitating
Incapacitating
Fatal
4K



2K



0K
LEFT_TURN ANGLE (front to side)(other than left turn)

Collision Manner




Collision Manner No Possible Non-
Incapacitating
Injury Injury Incapacitating Fatal Unknown TotalTotal

LEFT_TURN 10,555 3,555 2,880 656 72 0 17,718
ANGLE (front to side)(other than left turn) 6,523 2,244 1,751 445 44 0 11,007



Filters:
Incident.CollisionManner = ANGLE (front to side)(other than left turn),LEFT_TURN
TrafficUnit.ControlType =
TRAFFIC_CONTROL_SIGNAL,FLASHING_TRAFFIC_CONTROL_SIGNAL,SIGNAL

Year Between 2015 2019




7/21/2021
Safety Analysis Report
Speed-Related Collisions 2015 - 2019 (Phoenix)
12K



10K




Number of Crashes
8K
No Injury
Possible
6K Non-Incapacitating
Incapacitating
Fatal
4K



2K



0K
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year




Year No Possible Non-
Injury Injury Incapacitating Incapacitating Fatal Unknown Total Total

2015 9,974 3,017 1,631 268 48 0 14,938
2016 10,894 2,860 1,902 297 39 0 15,992
2017 11,084 2,795 1,967 261 41 0 16,148
2018 11,282 2,580 1,818 199 54 0 15,933
2019 10,980 2,623 1,743 201 51 0 15,598



Filters:
Person.Violation = SPEED_TO_FAST_FOR_CONDITIONS,EXCEEDED_LAWFUL_SPEED
Person.PersonType = DRIVER
Year Between 2015 2019




7/21/2021
Safety Analysis Report
Unrestrained Driver Collisions 2015 - 2019 (Phoenix)








Number of Crashes
No Injury
Possible
160 Non-Incapacitating
Incapacitating
120 Fatal






2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year




Year No Possible Non-
Injury Injury Incapacitating Incapacitating Fatal Unknown Total Total

2015 309 191 251 115 63 0 929
2016 250 163 270 110 61 0 854
2017 264 164 249 120 46 0 843
2018 252 123 234 96 61 0 766
2019 266 138 206 100 40 0 750



Filters:
Year Between 2015 2019
Person.PersonType = DRIVER
Person.SafetyDevice = None Used




Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022




APPENDIX B: HIGH INJURY NETWORK (HIN)
BACKGROUND

Development of the High Injury Network (HIN), or the
mapping of corridors where high numbers of people have
been killed and severely injured in traffic crashes, is a tool for
road safety initiatives. This approach will help city staff focus
limited resources on what’s needed and where so that funds
can be invested in the areas that are most impacted by death
and injury. Further data analysis of roadway characteristics
along the HIN will allow for identification and assignment of
appropriate design solutions.

The HIN was and should continue to be used during the public engagement process to build greater
public and political buy-in for changes. The HIN may also be used to inform decisions during cross-
departmental collaboration and about prioritizing investments, safe street improvements, education,
and police enforcement.


CITY OF PHOENIX HIGH INJURY NETWORK (HIN) METHODOLOGY

The City of Phoenix’s HIN used a 5-year historical data set (2016-2020) from the ADOT statewide
crash database that included 5,473 motor vehicles crashes that resulted in serious injury or death
(KSI). This data was separated into the two non-overlapping categories of Signalized Intersections
(150-foot circular buffer from the center of intersections with a traffic signal or HAWK beacon) and
Corridors (linear arterial and collector roadway segments).

From this dataset, it was brought into ESRI ArcGIS and location codes and joining exercises were
done to connect crash data points to roads/corridors or at intersections. Once this was done, crashes
per mile for corridors and crashes per intersection were calculated. The final stage was using the
ESRI statistics to understand the standard deviation of crashes per mile and crashes per intersection.
Standard deviation is a measure of how spread out a set of data is. The greater frequency of KSI
crashes, the higher the standard deviation, which indicates the farther away the location is from the
city-wide average. Locations with zero KSI crashes were included in their respective datasets.

After identifying the standard deviation of the crashes per mile and crashes per intersection, a
classification analysis in ESRI was done that grouped the crashes per mile via its standard deviation
into 5 groups.




xcvii
Appendicies



AOnce the output from the data analysis was mapped, the RSAP project management team reviewed
outcomes and decided to include signalized Intersections with 6 or more KSI crashes (standard
deviation > 1.98) and corridors with 12 or more KSI crashes per mile (standard deviation > 2.17) on
the HIN. fter identifying the standard deviation of the crashes per mile and crashes per intersection, a
classification analysis in ESRI was done that grouped the crashes per mile via its standard deviation
into 5 groups.

Intersections

The City of Phoenix HIN identifies 68 signalized intersections with the highest propensity of KSI
crashes. This group represents less than 6% of Phoenix’s signalized intersections and 12% of all KSI
crashes.
TABLE 1 : ALPHABETIZED LIST OF NOV 2021 HIN INTERSECTIONS

Location Location (Cont) Location (Cont)
3RD AVE & INDIAN SCHOOL RD 23RD AVE & DEER VALLEY RD 43RD AVE & THUNDERBIRD RD
3RD ST & INDIAN SCHOOL RD 27TH AVE & BEARDSLEY RD 43RD AVE & VAN BUREN ST
7TH AVE & BELL RD 27TH AVE & BUCKEYE RD 44TH ST & WASHINGTON ST
7TH AVE & BUCKEYE RD 27TH AVE & DEER VALLEY RD 48TH ST & BASELINE RD
7TH AVE & INDIAN SCHOOL RD 27TH AVE & INDIAN SCHOOL RD 48TH ST & CHANDLER BLVD
7TH ST & BROADWAY RD 27TH AVE & MCDOWELL RD 48TH ST & MCDOWELL RD
7TH ST & CAVE CREEK RD 28TH DR & CACTUS RD 51ST AVE & MCDOWELL RD
7TH ST & NORTHERN AVE 32ND ST & THOMAS RD 51ST AVE & THOMAS Rd
15TH AVE & INDIAN SCHOOL RD 35TH AVE & BELL RD 51ST AVE & THUNDERBIRD RD
16TH ST & BROADWAY RD 35TH AVE & BETHANY HOME RD 51ST AVE & UNION HILLS DR
16TH ST & SOUTHERN AVE 35TH AVE & BROADWAY RD 59TH AVE & INDIAN SCHOOL RD
19TH AVE & BELL RD 35TH AVE & DUNLAP AVE 59TH AVE & MCDOWELL RD
19TH AVE & CACTUS RD 35TH AVE & GLENDALE AVE 67TH AVE & MCDOWELL RD
19TH AVE & CAMELBACK RD 35TH AVE & LOWER BUCKEYE RD 67TH AVE & OSBORN RD
19TH AVE & DUNLAP AVE 35TH AVE & SOUTHERN AVE 67TH AVE & THOMAS RD
19TH AVE & GLENDALE AVE 35TH AVE & THUNDERBIRD RD 75TH AVE & BUCKEYE RD
19TH AVE & GREENWAY RD 39TH AVE & SOUTHERN AVE 75TH AVE & INDIAN SCHOOL RD
19TH AVE & INDIAN SCHOOL RD 43RD AVE & BETHANY HOME RD 75TH AVE & THOMAS RD
19TH AVE & NORTHERN AVE 43RD AVE & MARYLAND AVE 83RD AVE & INDIAN SCHOOL RD
19TH AVE & PEORIA AVE 43RD AVE & MCDOWELL RD 83RD AVE & THOMAS RD
19TH AVE & SOUTHERN AVE 43RD AVE & NORTHERN AVE CAVE CREEK RD & GREENWAY PKWY
19TH AVE & THUNDERBIRD RD 43RD AVE & PEORIA AVE -


xcviii
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022



Segments

The City of Phoenix HIN identifies 87 roadway segments that have the highest propensity of KSI
crashes. This group represents less than 3% of Phoenix’s roads and 12% of all KSI crashes. A map of
the HIN is provided below:




xcix
Appendicies



HIN PROJECT CONSOLIDATION AND CROSS CHECK

Step 1: There were an original 155 locations (intersections and segments) on the HIN. After a review
of intersecting, connecting, related, or contiguous locations that included review of projects that were
recently completed, in process, or programmed the 155 locations were consolidated to 98 Projects.
It is noted that there are some locations that did not move forward to projects based on need to hold
due to upcoming projects or study efforts.

Step 2: Once the 98 Projects were identified, a high-level project type was assigned: Intersection
Improvement, Corridor, or Corridor and Intersection Improvement. The Corridor and Intersection
Improvement project type indicates that there was a consolidation of an intersection and a segment
from the HIN.

Step 3: RSAP Equity Analysis and SS4A Underserved Communities (Federal40 Initiative) were
evaluated next. Of the 98 Projects, 61 are identified in BOTH the RSAP Equity Analysis and the SS4A
Underserved Communities. To determine if the Project was included in the RSAP Equity Analysis
and SS4A Underserved Communities, a spatial review was completed. If a Project was either fully
included, adjacent - one side of street, or at least one corner (intersections) of the RSAP Equity
Analysis and SS4A Underserved Communities, the result is a ‘yes.’

17 of the 98 Projects (not in the 61) are identified as part of the SS4A Underserved Communities, but
not in the RSAP Equity Analysis. 2 of the 98 Projects (not in the 61) are identified as part of RSAP
Equity Analysis, but not in the SS4A Underserved Communities. And 17 Projects are not identified
in either.

Step 4: Understanding that this information will be used to consider projects for the SS4A grant
application (2022) and to develop the implementation plan, the next step reviewed a series of capital
and operation programs that include: the Phoenix Street Transportation CIP, Phoenix T2050 Major
Arterial Program, Phoenix T2050 Mobility Areas, and the MAG Momentum 2050 plan. Phoenix staff
also conducted a manual review of the project list to determine if any were recently completed,
partially completed, or programmed. Projects that were substantially completed as of August 2022
were removed.



HIN PROJECT PRIORITIZATION

To determine which locations should be prioritized and implemented, two factors were applied per
type of project category: Intersections, Segments, and Composite (Segments + Intersections).

First, the locations were rank ordered by the amount of KSI crashes in that project type group, then
the group was divided into thirds: Tiers 1, 2, and 3.


c
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022



Then, within each Tier group, the locations were prioritized if it is part of an area of need determined
by the Phoenix RSAP Equity Analysis. If the location is either fully in, adjacent – one side, or at least
one corner (intersections), it is noted as a ‘yes’.

Phoenix staff also conducted a manual review of the project list to determine if any were recently
completed, partially completed, or programmed. Projects that were substantially completed as of
August 2022 were removed.


THE HIN AS A ROAD SAFETY TOOL

A high-level review of potential contributing factors and roadway characteristics along the HIN was
performed during development of the Road Safety Action Plan. Further site specific evaluation may
be required for identification and assignment of appropriate solutions at these high risk locations.
The HIN should be updated every three years based on the most recent five years of crash data
and continue to be used to inform decisions during cross-departmental collaboration and about
prioritizing investments, safe street improvements, education, and police enforcement. The HIN is one
of several tools and strategies the city will use to improve road safety. Locations outside of the HIN
will not be precluded from funding and implementation of safety improvements




ci
Appendicies




APPENDIX C: ROAD SAFETY TOOLBOXES
BACKGROUND

To support the implementation of various strategies
presented in this Plan, the City of Phoenix will utilize proven
best practices, guidelines, toolkits, and handbooks from
external organizations that include the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), National Cooperative Highway
Research Program (NCHRP), National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), and the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE). These resources are collectively referred to
as toolboxes. Several toolboxes have been identified that relate to the Strategies in this Plan and
are organized by Focus Area. They are to be used to support advancing the RSAP strategies, apply
proven engineering, enforcement, education, and evaluation designs and methods, and as quick
references to determine how to best approach and solve a traffic safety issues within the city. This is
not an exhaustive list of resources that apply to road safety.


GENERAL STRATEGIES

Lessons Learned from Development of Vision Zero Action Plans, FHWA-SA-20-073, January 2021.

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/zerodeaths/docs/FHWA-SA-20-073_Lessons_Learned_from_Development_of_Vision_Zero_Action_Plans.pdf

The FHWA assisted in the development of Vision Zero Action Plans (VZAPs) for two communities—City
of Daly City (California) and Macon-Bibb County (Georgia). The VZAPs serve as a framework that
details goals, objectives, and action items, using the Safe System Approach to the extent possible, to
implement the safety programs that will guide each community toward zero fatalities. The Transportation
Safety Planning and the Zero Deaths Vision: A Guide for Metropolitan Planning Organizations and
Local Communities served as a guiding document in the processes. The purpose of this report is to
summarize and generalize the two communities’ plan-development processes. This report also includes
information on opportunities, challenges and lessons learned.

Strategies to Coordinate Zero Deaths Efforts for State and Local Agencies, FHWA-SA-20-061, November 2020.

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/zerodeaths/docs/Strategies_for_VZ_Coordination_112020.pdf

The document is designed to help State and local agencies foster and build stronger relationships
that support coordinated zero deaths efforts. The document describes work toward the Safe System
Approach for reaching the zero deaths goal, including managing speed for safety, strengthening safety

cii
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022



culture, and leveraging data and community input to prioritize changes.

Transportation Safety Planning and the Zero Deaths Vision: A Guide for Metropolitan Planning Organizations and
Local Communities, FHWA-SA-18-024, August 2018.

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tsp/fhwasa18024/MPOLocalSafetyPlanGuide_508compliant.pdf

This document provides references to key information for metropolitan planning organizations and
local communities to understand the safety planning process and develop their own local or regional
safety plan.

Primer on Safe System Approach for Pedestrians and Bicyclists, FHWA-SA-21-065, May 2021

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/docs/fhwasa21065.pdf

The Safe System approach acknowledges that humans make mistakes and, importantly, are vulnerable
to the forces that occur during a crash. By focusing on eliminating fatal and serious injuries the Safe
System approach inherently places a priority on pedestrians and bicyclists, who are at a higher risk of
fatal or serious injury than a person driving or traveling in a motor vehicle. The purpose of this primer is
to provide transportation agencies a baseline understanding of the Safe System approach and how it
relates to bicycle and pedestrian safety.

A Strategic Approach to Transforming Traffic Safety Culture to Reduce Deaths and Injuries NCHRP Web-Only Document
252, 2018

https://nap.nationalacademies.org/download/25286#

A strategic approach to transform traffic safety culture should leverage the values and change the
beliefs of all relevant traffic safety stakeholders across the social environment. The purpose of this
report is to provide state agencies responsible for traffic safety (and their traditional, as well as non-
traditional, traffic safety partners) with guidance for a strategic approach to transform the traffic safety
culture of road users and stakeholders. The goal is to use this approach to sustain improvements in
traffic safety for all road users, including non-motorized users.

Traffic Safety Culture Primer, Montana DOT, August 2019

https://www.mdt.mt.gov/other/webdata/external/research/docs/research_proj/tsc/TSC_PRIMER/PRIMER.pdf

This primer provides a definition of traffic safety culture and explain how it influences road user behavior
and traffic safety. With this understanding, traffic safety stakeholders can communicate to colleagues,
existing and new partners, and leaders about its importance. Ultimately, growing a positive traffic safety
culture needs to be integrated into safety planning processes including Strategic Highway Safety Plans



ciii
Appendicies



(among others). The report defines traffic safety culture as a system of beliefs about traffic safety. A
basic model is presented that shows the relationship between belief systems and behaviors, which can
affect traffic safety.

Guidance for Evaluating Traffic Safety Culture Strategies, FHWA/MT-21-001/8882-309-14, January 2021

https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/55813/dot_55813_DS1.pdf

This report summarizes a project that conducted a literature review of current practices in the evaluation
of traffic safety culture strategies. This review focused on transportation safety literature but also
extended to evaluating safety culture in other public health sectors. A description of the literature was
provided as a report, which was also converted to a journal submission. A separate resource document
was created to provide traffic safety stakeholders with guidance about the steps and conditions that are
necessary for the evaluation of traffic safety culture strategies.

A Primer for Traffic Safety Culture, ITE Journal, May 2014

https://westerntransportationinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/ITEJMay_TrafficSafetyCulturePrimer_Ward_Otto_linkenbach.pdf

In November 2013, ITE Journal reported on the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ participation in the
first National Roadway Safety Culture Summit that took place in August 2013. The article, “Partnering
Across Disciplines for Traffic Culture Change” detailed the summit’s focus on the impact safety culture
has on roadway crashes and how that culture can contribute to eliminating fatalities and serious
injuries on roadways. The summit concluded with a call to action to create a toolkit, best practices,
and guidance on models for measuring behavior and changes for reliability, validity, and interventions.
Work is ongoing to develop a common, tangible definition of traffic safety culture and the associated
materials to help promote it.

Sustainable & Safe: A Vision and Guidance for Zero Road Deaths, World Resources Institute, 2015.

https://files.wri.org/d8/s3fs-public/sustainable-safe.pdf

This report is to facilitate the application of the Safe System approach to road safety. It provides an
overview of the concepts and evidence behind a Safe System, discusses the relevance of this approach
to low- and middle-income countries, and the wider benefits to health and the environment, and
presents practical guidance that can be applied to develop a strategy and action plan to reduce traffic
deaths while also achieving broader sustainability goals. The guidance focuses on action areas that
have been shown to save lives and reduce serious injuries.




civ
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022



Safe Systems: Guiding Principles and International Applications, CSCRS-R7, Collaborative Sciences Center for Road
Safety, Chapel Hill, NC, June 2019

https://www.roadsafety.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/CSCRS_R3_Final-Report.pdf

This report examines the state-of-the-practice in Safe Systems. It is divided into two sections. The first
examines the concept of Safe Systems, focusing on our emerging understanding of crash causation, as
well as how this understanding may be applied to integrate safety considerations into transportation
practice in the United States. The second presents a review of the practices of the four countries
with the most established Safe Systems programs— Sweden, the Netherlands, Australia, and New
Zealand—and details how each has structured their approach to road safety around Safe Systems
principles.

Guidebook on Identification of High Pedestrian Crash Locations, FHWA-HRT-17-106, April 2018.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/17106/17106.pdf

This guidebook documents methods and examples used to identify or prioritize high pedestrian
crash sites to assist State and local agencies in identifying high pedestrian crash locations such as
intersections (points), segments, facilities, and areas. The process of identifying high pedestrian crash
locations results in a prioritized list of potential locations on the roadway system that could benefit
from safety improvement projects. Discusses performance measures and provides information on six
different screening methods for identifying high pedestrian crash locations

FHWA Road Safety Audit Guidelines, FHWA-SA-06-06, 2006

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/guidelines/documents/FHWA_SA_06_06.pdf

The purpose of this document is to provide a foundation for public agencies to draw upon when
developing their own Road Safety Audit (RSA) policies and procedures and when conducting RSAs
within their jurisdiction. The availability of a consistent guideline is anticipated to lead to a better
understanding of the core concepts of RSAs and to promote their use. An RSA program can range
from something very simple to the full integration of safety into every stage of each project.


BEHAVIOR RELATED STRATEGIES

Arizona Department of Transportation Traffic Safety for School Areas Guidelines, 2006

https://azdot.gov/sites/default/files/2019/07/adot-traffic-safety-for-school-area-guidelines.pdf

Provides guidelines for school zone traffic control and enforcement for Arizona. The guidelines are


cv
Appendicies



published by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and apply to the entire Arizona Highway
System. These guidelines are applicable to school officials (public and private), school planners, traffic
engineers, police, and other public safety personnel throughout Arizona. They identify the role for local
officials, parents, and school officials in school area traffic control.

Bicycle Safety Education for Children From a Developmental and Learning Perspective, DOT HS 811 880, January 2014

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/bicycle_safety_education_for_children-811880.pdf

The purpose of this literature review is two-fold. First, this report describes the nature of children and
adolescents’ bicycle injuries in addition to understanding the types of programs that exist and their
effectiveness. Second, this report explores the psychological domains related to riding a bicycle in
childhood and adolescence such as motor skill development, cognitive development, brain development,
and risk-taking and social influences. Understanding how each of these interacts with children’s abilities
to learn and ride a bicycle safely in traffic allows researchers and safety practitioners to design more
effective bicycle education programs to teach children and adolescents how to safely negotiate traffic
as bicyclists.

Cycling Savvy Empowerment for Unlimited Travel – Online website

https://cyclingsavvy.org/

Cycling Savvy is a program of the American Bicycling Education Association. Their mission is to provide
programs and resources for the education of bicyclists as drivers of vehicles, and bicycling-related
education for traffic engineers, transportation planners, law enforcement professionals, educators, and
the general public. Various educational courses are available from this website, including i-person and
online courses.

Automated Enforcement Program Checklist For Red Light Cameras and Automated Speed Enforcement, May 2021

https://www.iihs.org/media/431e551b-3f64-4591-8e30-ad35a069f41f/cF4n4g/News/2021/050621%20auto%20enforcement/AE-checklist-
May-2021.pdf

Two-page checklist created by AAA, Advocates for Highway Safety, GOHS, IIHS-ILD and NSC. The
checklist provides a minimum list of considerations to help an agency follow best practices. The
goal is to operate a successful program that reduces crashes and prevents deaths and injuries while
maintaining strong public support.

Noteworthy Speed Management Practices, FHWA-SA-20-047, August 2020

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa20047/fhwasa20047.pdf




cvi
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022



This report provides an avenue of information for practitioners in that it summarizes eight case studies
which highlight noteworthy practices over a range of speed management issues. The case study
strategies include Strategic Speed Management Program; Self-Enforcing Roadways; Setting Credible
Speed Limits; High Visibility Enforcement; Successful Strategies for Adoption of Safety Cameras;
Targeted Reporting of Speeding-Related Crashes; Consistent Speed Limit for Vulnerable Road Users;
and Network Approach to Setting Speed Limits.

FHWA Website, Noteworthy Speed Management Practices: Successful Strategies for Adoption of Safety Cameras,
September 2020

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa20047/sec6.cfm

A case study to show how the implementation of safety camera was implemented in New York City,
along with some of the key takeaways and lessons learned. New York City faced typical oppositions
to safety cameras such as legislative restrictions and citizen resistance. They successfully instituted a
safety camera program in school zones through several strategies.

Red Light Camera Systems Operational Guidelines, FHWA, January 2005

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/signal/fhwasa05002.pdf

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) have developed this operational guideline for use by State and local agencies for the
implementation and operation of red light camera systems. The purpose of these guidelines is to assist
jurisdictions who are considering the implementation of red light camera systems and help them avoid
inconsistent or incorrect application of such systems. The information contained in this document is
intended to foster discussions and initiatives that will improve intersection safety by reducing crashes
due to red light running. This document is not a regulatory requirement and the decision to use red light
cameras is a matter for local decision-makers.

Evaluation of NHTSA Distracted Driving Demonstration Projects in Connecticut and New York, DOT HS 811 635, March

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/811635_eval_nhtsa_distracted_driving_demo_proj_comm_ct_and_ny.pdf

The communities of Hartford, Connecticut, and Syracuse, New York, implemented year-long campaigns
to test whether NHTSA’s high-visibility enforcement (HVE) model could be applied to reduce two
specific forms of distracted driving – driving while talking on a hand-held cell phone or texting. The
HVE model applies strong laws, vigorous targeted law enforcement, extensive media that emphasizes
the enforcement, and evaluation. Both sites conducted 4 waves of enforcement between April 2010
and April 2011. NHTSA developed and bought TV and radio spots featuring the tag line Phone in One
Hand, Ticket in the Other. Both sites generated ample earned media. Police wrote 100 to 200 citations


cvii
Appendicies



per 10,000 population for each wave in each site. The results show that high-visibility enforcement
campaigns can reduce the number of people who use hand-held cell phones while driving.

“See Me AZ” Public Safety Campaign: MAG online website

https://azmag.gov/Programs/Transportation/Safety-Programs/See-Me-AZ

“See Me AZ” seeks to raise awareness of pedestrian and motorist laws and change the behaviors
that lead to pedestrian and cyclist crashes and fatalities. Provides regional resources for improving
pedestrian and bicyclist safety in the region, including YouTube campaign ads, video testimonials,
safety tips for drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians, and relevant crash data visualizations.

NHTSA Traffic Safety Marketing Website

https://www.trafficsafetymarketing.gov/

Online site that contains marketing materials for numerous topics relating to traffic safety including
Bicycle Safety, Distracted Driving, Drowsy Driving, Drug-Impaired Driving, Drunk Driving, Motorcycle
Safety, Older Driver Safety, Pedestrian Safety, Speed Prevention, Teen Safety and Vehicle Safety.
Specific safety campaign materials are provided within each safety topic area that may include
pamphlets, videos, as well as guidebooks for the campaign. Some materials are available in Spanish.

NHTSA Website: High Visibility Enforcement (HVE) Toolkit

https://www.nhtsa.gov/enforcement-justice-services/high-visibility-enforcement-hve-toolkit

Provides information on types of enforcement (Saturation Patrol, Wave, Integrated Enforcement,
and Multi-Jurisdictional Enforcement), placement of HVE, visibility elements, training and measuring
effectiveness. Also provides information on publicity methods for HVE, implementation and resources
in an online website. In addition, NHTSA provides template materials (press releases, talking points,
posters, etc.), for the following individual program areas: Impaired Driving; Occupant Protection; Speed/
Aggressive Driving; and Distracted Driving.

Impaired Driving Guidebook: Three Keys to Renewed Focus and Success, IACP Impaired Driving Subcommittee

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/impaired_driving_guidebook-three_keys_to_renewed_focus_and_success.pdf

This Guidebook is intended to serve as a guide to law enforcement executives on how to most
effectively renew their efforts to eliminate impaired driving on our roadways. The Subcommittee came
to agreement that success lies in three key areas, and this Guidebook has a section dedicated to each:
(1) Law Enforcement Leadership; (2) Criminal Justice Collaboration; and (3) Effective Communication
Strategies.



cviii
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022




PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS STRATEGIES

School Site Planning, Design, and Transportation, Informational Report, ITE Technical Committee TENC-105-01, June

https://ecommerce.ite.org/IMIS/ItemDetail?iProductCode=IR-137-E

Provides information to aid school and local officials, engineers, architects, planners, and developers
in creating walkable, community-based schools. A major emphasis is on the design of new schools
for maximum walkability, traffic safety, and efficiency. This report also addresses these issues for the
improvement or redevelopment of existing school sites.

Evaluation of Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons on Arizona Highways, SPR-756, September 2019

https://apps.azdot.gov/files/ADOTLibrary/publications/project_reports/pdf/spr756.pdf

The focus of this Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) research was to: investigate the safety
and operational impacts of the PHB installations that have occurred on Arizona’s state highways (higher-
speed roads) to understand their impacts on vehicles and pedestrians; investigate the relationship
between crashes at PHB locations and the spacing from nearby signalized intersections; investigate
the relationship between crashes at PHB locations and other roadway characteristics; and determine
whether modifications to ADOT guidance are needed to advise ADOT on site selection and use of
PHBs.

Evaluation of Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons and Rapid Flashing Beacons, FHWA-HRT-16-040, July 2016

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/16040/16040.pdf

This report documents an FHWA project that includes four studies that investigated how characteristics
of rectangular rapid-flashing beacons (RRFBs) and pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHBs) affected the
likelihood of drivers yielding to a pedestrian. The results of this project supported the development of two
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices official interpretations for the RRFB: Official Interpretation
#4(09)-41 (I)—Additional Flash Pattern for RRFBs and Official Interpretation #4(09)-58 (I)—Placement
of RRFB Units Above Sign. (1–3) The overall 96 percent high yielding for PHBs identified in this research,
along with findings from previous studies, support the use of this device at a variety of locations, such
as on high-speed roads, wide roads, and at residential intersections.

Rectangular Rapid Flashing (RRFB) Countermeasure Tech Sheet, June 2018

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/step/docs/TechSheet_RRFB_508compliant.pdf

Two-page technical sheet on the application of RRFBs. Developed as part of the FHWA STEP program.


cix
Appendicies



Interim Approval 21 – Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons at Crosswalks, FHWA, March 2018

https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia21/index.htm

Provides requirements, guidance, and options for the optional use of the RRFBs under the terms of the
Interim Approval. (The next edition of the MUTCD is expected to contain requirements, guidance and
options for the design and use of RRFBs, and at that time the IA will be archived.)

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations, FHWA-SA-17-072, July 2018

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/step/docs/STEP_Guide_for_Improving_Ped_Safety_at_Unsig_Loc_3-2018_07_17-508compliant.pdf

This document provides guidance to agencies, including best practices for each step involved in
selecting countermeasures. By focusing on uncontrolled crossing locations, agencies can address a
significant national safety problem and improve quality of life for pedestrians of all ages and abilities.
Agencies may use this guide to develop a customized policy or to supplement existing local decision-
making guidelines. Provides a Countermeasure Selection Table for uncontrolled intersections based
on posted speed limit, ADT and roadway configuration. Also provides a table listing the safety issues
addressed by countermeasure type.

Pedestrian Lighting Primer, FHWA-SA-21-087, April 2022

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/night_visib/docs/Pedestrian_Lighting_Primer_Final.pdf

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) primer to used be a resource for transportation practitioners
interested in the safety and security benefits of pedestrian lighting as well as lighting design
considerations at locations with existing or future pedestrian activity. Presents a summary of existing
research indicating the benefits of lighting for improving pedestrian safety, citing studies that resulted in
CMFs that quantify reductions in the number of vehicle/pedestrian crashes due to lighting, provides an
overview of the pedestrian lighting design process, and presents a lighting design example that depicts
a typical scenario for pedestrian lighting facilities.

Research Report: Street Lighting for Pedestrian Safety, FHWA-SA-20-062, December 2020.

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/night_visib/docs/StreetLightingPedestrianSafety.pdf

This document details three separate experiments used to form pedestrian lighting recommendations
that consider the visibility needs of both children and adults. In the first study, participant drivers were
evaluated on their ability to detect the presence of child-sized pedestrians under variations of luminaire
type (2200 K, 4000 K, and 5000 K), mounting height (road scale and ped scale), as well as variations in
luminance and illuminance of the visual target. A second experiment evaluated the ability for walking
pedestrians (adults and children) to detect hazards in their path under the same lighting conditions used
in the first experiment. The final experiment evaluated the abilities of adults and children to determine

cx
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022



when it would be no longer safe to cross a mid-block crosswalk as vehicles approach under varying
lighting conditions. The outcomes of this research are presented as recommendations for crosswalk
lighting design to include considerations for children, depending on pedestrian volume and road class.

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Road Safety Audit (RSA) Guide and Prompt Lists, FHWA-SA-20-042, September 2020

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/docs/fhwasa20042.pdf

This guide is intended to support agencies that are interested in conducting pedestrian- and bicycle-
focused RSAs and includes information on safety risks for both modes, the RSA process, necessary
data, and the roles and responsibilities of the RSA Team. Also included are updated prompt lists for
pedestrians and bicyclists to use in the field. This guide will aid practitioners understand pedestrian
and bicyclist issues in their jurisdiction and potentially achieve other goals in addition to safety, like
enhancing quality of life, improving community health, or increasing pedestrian and bicycle mode
share. Describes overview of the 8-step RSA process.

Improving Intersections for Pedestrians and Bicyclists Informational Guide, FHWA-SA-22-017, April 2022.

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/about/fhwasa22017.pdf

The purpose of this guide is to inform the state of the practice concerning intersection planning and
design to implement solutions that help achieve the goal for zero fatalities and serious injuries while
improving mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians. The primary intersection types discussed in this
guide include traditional signalized intersections, roundabouts, Median U-Turn (MUT) intersections,
Reduced Crossing U-Turn (RCUT) intersections, Quadrant Roadway (QR) intersections, Displaced
Left Turn (DLT) intersections, and Diverging Diamond Interchanges (DDI). This guide also includes
discussion about stop-controlled and uncontrolled intersection crossings for bicyclists and pedestrians.
This guide illustrates integration of bikeways and pedestrian pathways at and across traditional and
alternative intersections, describes countermeasures applicable to pedestrian and bicyclist crossings
at intersections, and summarizes the application of intersection analysis methods for the safety and
mobility of pedestrians and bicyclists.

NCHRP 926 - Guidance to Improve Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety at Intersections, 2020

https://nap.nationalacademies.org/download/25808

NCHRP Research Report 926 provides a succinct process for selecting intersection designs and
operational treatments that provide safety benefits for pedestrians and bicyclists, and the most appropriate
situation for their application. The Guide provides a step-by-step process for selecting intersection
safety treatments based on site conditions, effectiveness, level of public process, and their potential
to reduce certain common pedestrian and bicycle crash types. The appendix is a Countermeasure
Glossary documenting 34 pedestrian and bicycle intersection safety countermeasures with two-page


cxi
Appendicies



listings of key information for each. Also provides design trade-off of safety countermeasures.

Bicycle Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System, BIKESAFE, FHWA (originally published 2006)

http://www.pedbikesafe.org/bikesafe/

The Bicycle Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System is intended to provide practitioners
with the latest information available for improving the safety and mobility of those who bike. The
online tools provide the user with a list of possible engineering, education, or enforcement treatments
to improve bicycle safety and/or mobility based on user input about a specific location. Provides
countermeasure list, selection tool and selection matrices as well as case studies and resources.

Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection Tool, PEDSAFE, FHWA (originally published 2004)

http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/

The FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (PEDSAFE) is an interactive
tool for reviewing pedestrian safety countermeasures at intersections and along the network. PEDSAFE
includes intersection features or countermeasures such as RRFBs, PHBs, countdown timers at pedestrian
signals, and curb design. A total of 67 engineering, education, and enforcement countermeasures are
discussed. The treatments and programs selected for inclusion in this on-line document are those that
have been in place for an extended period of time and/or have proven effective. New countermeasures
continue to be developed, implemented, and evaluated.

Bikeway Selection Guide, FHWA, 2019

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/docs/fhwasa18077.pdf

This document is a resource to help transportation practitioners consider and make informed decisions
about tradeoffs relating to the selection of bikeway types. The report highlights linkages between the
bikeway selection process and the transportation planning process. This guide presents these factors
and considerations in a practical process-oriented way. It draws on research where available and
emphasizes engineering judgment, design flexibility, documentation, and experimentation. Provides
bicyclist design user profiles and a chart that relates preferred bikeway type to ADT and motorist speed.

FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide, May 2015

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/separated_bikelane_pdg/separatedbikelane_pdg.pdf

Outlines planning considerations for separated bike lanes (also sometimes called “cycle tracks” or
“protected bike lanes”) and provides a menu of design options covering typical one and two-way
scenarios. It highlights different options for providing separation, while also documenting midblock



cxii
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022



design considerations for driveways, transit stops, accessible parking, and loading zones. It provides
detailed intersection design information covering topics such as turning movement operations,
signalization, signage, and on-road markings. Case studies highlight best practices and lessons learned
throughout the document.

Primer on Safe System Approach for Pedestrians and Bicyclists, FHWA-SA-21-065, May 2021

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/docs/fhwasa21065.pdf

The Safe System approach acknowledges that humans make mistakes and, importantly, are vulnerable
to the forces that occur during a crash. By focusing on eliminating fatal and serious injuries the Safe
System approach inherently places a priority on pedestrians and bicyclists, who are at a higher risk of
fatal or serious injury than a person driving or traveling in a motor vehicle. The purpose of this primer
is to provide transportation agencies a baseline understanding of the Safe System approach and how
it relates to bicycle and pedestrian safety. Topics include, safe speeds, safe roads, safe vehicles, safe
road users and post-crash care.

Advancing Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety: A Primer for Highway April 2016 Safety Professionals, DOT HS 812 258,
April 2016

https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/812258-Peds_Bike_Primer.pdf

This primer is intended for highway safety professionals, including State Highway Safety Officials,
as well as their partners and grantees, as a reference for an integrated and comprehensive effort
to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and support broader transportation-related goals. The
primer summarizes the most promising infrastructure treatments and behavioral programs available
for addressing specific safety problems and highlights how these approaches can be combined and
implemented. It identifies opportunities for various agencies to collaborate and combine their respective
approaches and funding for a more comprehensive program. It also offers real-world examples of what
States and local jurisdictions are doing to address pedestrian and bicycle issues in a comprehensive
manner. Finally, the primer includes descriptions of key concepts and definitions of common terms
and acronyms to help readers understand the essentials of pedestrian and bicycle safety issues when
discussing and collaborating with diverse partners to develop comprehensive programs.

Maricopa Association of Governments Shade and Thermal Comfort Online Website

https://azmag.gov/Programs/Transportation/Active-Transportation/Active-Transportation-Plan/Active-Transportation-Toolbox/Pedestrian-
Infrastructure/Shade-and-Thermal-Comfort

Provides recommendations on shade design considerations, that are based on weather data collected
over the period 2005–2015 for the afternoon hours, defined as noon through 6pm. Summer months
in this analysis are considered May through October. Provides several shade examples involving


cxiii
Appendicies



landscape trees and structures. Quantifies a thermally comfortable pedestrian route (Developed by
ASU researchers.)

Urban and Community Forestry 2016 Arizona Shade Tree Planting Prioritization, Arizona Department of Forestry and
Fire Management, 2016.

https://dffm.az.gov/sites/default/files/media/2016_AZ_STPP_Report_2017-01-06.pdf

This report summarizes the intent, methodology, and results of the 2016 Shade Tree Planting Prioritization
analysis of the Urban and Community Forestry Program (UCF) at the Arizona Department of Forestry
and Fire Management (DFFM). The purpose of the analysis was to assess existing urban forests in
Arizona’s communities and identify shade tree planting needs.


INTERSECTION STRATEGIES

AASHTO Highway Safety Manual User Guide, August 2014

https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/nchrp17-50_userguide.pdf

The Highway Safety Manual (HSM) is the premier guidance document for incorporating quantitative
safety analysis in the highway transportation project planning and development processes. The
HSM includes predictive methods for infrastructure improvement project alternative analysis and
development/design, including: (1) the use of national safety performance functions (models) developed
to predict crashes by severity specific facility types and base conditions; and (2) associated crash
modification factors (CMFs) to estimate the potential effects of design alternatives or changes from
base conditions. The second edition of the HSM is expected to be published by AASHTO in 2022.

Screening Your Network to Improve Roadway Safety Performance – Getting Started

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/systemic/fhwasa17008/fhwasa17008.pdf

A 5-page FHWA document to describe a network screening in a five steps process. Network screening
provides documentation and justification for prioritizing safety needs. The five steps are: 1. Establish
a focus; 2. Identify the types of sites or facilities to be screened; 3. Select performance measures; 4.
Choose a screening method; and 5. Screen and evaluate results. This is provided as part of the Every
Day Counts (EDC) program.

Selecting Projects and Strategies to Maximize Highway Safety Improvement Program Performance, FHWA-SA-20-001,
March 2021

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/docs/FHWA-SA-20-001_Maximizing_HSI_Performance_508.pdf



cxiv
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022



This guide presents fundamental analytical methods and a conceptual framework for maximizing the
effectiveness of the HSIP by increasing the individual performance of its projects. To address fatal and
serious-injury crashes, agencies should focus on the change in fatal and serious-injury crashes, rather
than all crashes or all injuries, when selecting projects and should prioritize and select projects using
quantitative methods such as the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) when possible. While intended primarily for
State agencies, the guide contains helpful information that can be used by local agencies

Unsignalized Intersection Improvement Guide (UIIG) Toolkit, Online website maintained by ITE, 2015

https://toolkits.ite.org/uiig/

The purpose of the UIIG is to assist and guide users through the process of evaluating their unsignalized
intersections and identifying opportunities to enhance their safety and operational performance. The
contents of the UIIG are presented under two sections: information and Toolkit. The Information section
provides important background material related to the types, users, common problems and treatments,
and general considerations associated with unsignalized intersections. The Toolkit provides a number
of resources to assist the user in: (1) collecting data on the existing conditions and characteristics of the
intersection; and (2) identifying potential treatments that may improve the safety and mobility at the
intersection.

MAG Left Turn Crash Mitigation Implementation Template & Guidance, May 2018

https://azmag.gov/Portals/0/Documents/MagContent/LT-Crash-Mitigation-Implementation-Template-Guidance.pdf

The overall goal of this guidance is to help address the “Eliminate Deaths and Serious Injuries Related to
Crashes at Intersections” Action Area in the MAG STSP by assessing intersection safety improvements
as they relate to creating positive offsets at left-turn lanes. The specific objective is to provide technical
guidance to local agencies in identifying locations with left-turn safety concerns and in mitigating these
issues, with a focus on improving negative offsets at opposing left-turn lanes. The guidelines were
developed assuming agencies have limited staff, resources, and data. Important left-turn safety issues
can be identified efficiently through aerial photography (e.g. Maricopa County aerials, Google Maps),
with field reviews as needed.

Applying Transportation Asset Management to Traffic Signals: A Primer, FHWA-HOP-20-048, January 2022

https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop20048/fhwahop20048.pdf

This primer provides information for applying transportation asset management (TAM) principles to
traffic signals assets. It also describes how transportation agencies can benefit from including traffic
signals in their asset management planning and integrating asset management practices for traffic
signal assets. This primer provides information for transportation agencies responsible for: (1) Managing
and maintaining traffic signals. (2) Improving asset management practices. (3) Planning new traffic


cxv
Appendicies



signal assets and understanding the long-term responsibility (and cost) involved.

The Evolution of ITS in Transportation Asset Management, ENT-2020-4, May 2020

https://enterprise.prog.org/wp-content/uploads/ENT-ITS-Asset-Mgmt-final-report.pdf

The report summarizes the current state of ITS asset management, both in the ENTERPRISE member
agencies and across North America, and to describe the attributes and criteria being used to effectively
support ITS asset management. ENTERPRISE pooled-fund study for the Michigan DOT.

Evolving and Phasing Out Legacy ITS Devices and Systems Final Report, ENT-2019-2, October 2019

https://enterprise.prog.org/Projects/2019/ENT_PhasingOutLegacyITS_Report_FINAL_Oct2019.pdf

This project documented nearly 60 case studies, including decision factors, criteria, approaches,
and tools agencies use to help guide decision-making when evolving and phasing out ITS devices
and systems. Based on the case studies, a set of criteria and applicable tools was developed for ten
common ITS devices and systems. These criteria are intended to assist agencies with identifying and
navigating through multiple considerations while assessing ITS devices and systems to determine
potential evolutions or eliminations.

Manual on Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections to Transit, FTA-FL-26-7012-00, July 2017

https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/64496/ftareportno0111.pdf

Provides a compendium of best practices to help transportation professionals improve pedestrian and
bicycle safety and access to transit, including information on evaluating, planning for, and implementing
improvements to pedestrian and bicycle access to transit. In addition to covering key concepts such as
access sheds, connected networks, and station area comfort, safety, and legibility, the manual covers
needs specific to pedestrians, such as complete sidewalks and safe, convenient crossings, and to
bicyclists, such as bicycle parking and on-transit accommodations.

Designing for Transit A Guide for Supporting Public Transit Through Complete Streets, Monterey-Salinas Transit, 2020

https://mst.org/wp-content/media/DesigningForTransit-2020-Edition.pdf

The guide addresses bus stops, which are the most fundamental infrastructure element of transit service.
The bus stops section covers the minimum required dimensions for a bus to stop and for the sidewalk
and curb space at the bus stop to provide Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant access to
the bus. The guide also addresses where and how bus stops interact with the street network to inform
where around an intersection to place a stop, or what choices to make when placing a stop away from
an intersection (including in suburban and rural areas). This section also addresses minimum street
dimensions for accommodating buses and providing other transit-supportive or priority treatments


cxvi
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022



along roadways. Furthermore, the guide addresses access between bus stops and the places people
want to go, for pedestrians, including people with disabilities, and bicyclists.

Signalized Intersections Informational Guide, Second Edition, FHWA-SA-13-027, July 2013

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/signal/fhwasa13027.pdf

This document serves as an introduction to and guide for evaluating the safety, design, and operations
of signalized intersections. It also provides tools to deliver better balanced solutions for all users. It takes
a holistic approach to signalized intersections and considers the safety and operational implications
of a particular treatment on all system users (e.g., motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users).
Readers will find the tools and information necessary to make insightful intersection assessments and
to understand the impacts of potential improvement measures.

Decision-Making Guide for Traffic Signal Phasing, NCHRP 284, 2020

https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/25905/decision-making-guide-for-traffic-signal-phasing

The TRB National Cooperative Highway Research Program’s NCHRP Web-Only Document 284:
Decision-Making Guide for Traffic Signal Phasing is designed to give professionals designing or
operating signalized intersections the tools they need to provide safe and efficient overall operations,
considering both crash risk and movement delays. The guide synthesizes existing best practices as
well as new information from the accompanying research effort (NCHRP 03- 118). This guide covers
right-turn, left turn, and pedestrian phasing mode and sequence concepts. Concept definitions and best
practices are provided for right-turn and pedestrian phasing mode and sequence. For left-turn phasing,
this guide summarizes the concepts / existing best practices and includes additional information from
the accompanying research effort (NCHRP 03-118). The guide presents safety performance functions
(SPFs) and crash modification factors (CMFs) for left-turn phasing modes as well as charts to determine
the operational impact of each phase mode. A methodology for combining the effect of safety and
operations of the various left-turn phase modes is also provided in this guide.

Leading Pedestrian Interval – FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure, FHWA-SA-21-032, October 2018

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/lead_ped_int.cfm

FHWA Webpage for LPI as a Proven Safety Countermeasures, providing the typical duration and safety
benefits.

NACTO Urban Street Design Guide – Leading Pedestrian Interval, September 2013

https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/intersection-design-elements/traffic-signals/leading-pedestrian-interval/

Provides information on the application, benefits, and consideration with the use of LPI, as well as ways


cxvii
Appendicies



to increase the effectiveness, along with three references on LPI studies.

SDOT Policy for Leading Pedestrian intervals, Seattle Department of Transportation, April 2019

https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/VisionZero/SDOT%20Policy%20on%20Leading%20Pedestrian%20Intervals%20
-%20Signed.pdf

This policy applies to the selection of locations and implementation of LPI within the public right of way
within the City of Seattle. Includes selection criteria, schedule, and design guidelines for LPI application.

Guidelines for Determining Traffic Signal Change and Clearance Intervals: An ITE Recommended Practice, 2020

https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/traffic-engineering/traffic-signal-change-and-clearance-intervals/2020

Guidance on yellow change and red clearance intervals for signalized intersections. The goal of this
guidance is to create a consensus methodology for calculating and evaluating traffic signal change
intervals that can be consistently implemented by transportation agencies. The recommendations
presented are intended to yield reasonable times for the yellow change and red clearance intervals
for traffic signals, assisting transportation professionals in enhancing intersection safety, maintaining
reasonable traffic flow, and providing for movement of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. The calculation
methodology in the report is based on the extended kinematic equation. The report provides guidance
for applying the methodology and for selecting input values for both through and turning movements
at signalized intersections. Input values include perception-reaction time, approach speed, deceleration
rate, approach grade, intersection width, vehicle length, and conflicting movement start-up delay.

Guidelines for Determining Traffic Signal Change and Clearance Intervals, By Douglas E. Noble, P.E., PTOE (F), ITE
Journal, March 2020.

https://www.ite.org/pub/?id=20D7513D-BD0A-5BEF-5751-1C87F61F551B

An ITE Journal article that summarizes the ITE Recommended Practice adopted by ITE.

A Methodology and Case Study: Evaluating the Benefits and Costs of Implementing Automated Traffic Signal
Performance, FHWA-HOP-20-003, June 2020

https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop20003/fhwahop20003.pdf

This primer describes a methodology to evaluate the benefits and costs of objectives- and performance-
based traffic signal operations and maintenance. The methodology includes a quantitative component
supported by a subjective analysis. The intent of the methodology is to describe advantages and
disadvantages of using a performance-based traffic signal monitoring process, executed through the
automated traffic signal performance measures (ATSPM), when compared to the traditional approaches
of monitoring and retiming traffic signals.


cxviii
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022



ITS Strategic Plan 2012, Maricopa Association of Governments, December 2012

https://azmag.gov/Portals/0/Documents/ITS_2013-01-10_2012-ITS-Strategic-Plan.pdf

Provides ITS Strategic Plan and goals for the MAG Region. The MAG ITS Strategic Plan provides a
framework, a set of regional ITS priorities and a strategy for focusing available funding toward achieving
regional mobility and safety objectives, as well as continuing to support local agencies in deploying
and enhancing their ITS programs.

Benefits of Adaptive Traffic Control Deployments – A Review of Evaluation Studies, NCHRP 20-07, TASK 414, November

https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP20-07_Task414FinalReport.pdf

Study conducted for the AASHTO Standing Committee on Highways. This is a comprehensive analysis
of ATCSs deployed and evaluated in the US and allows a detailed analysis of ATCS deployments and
investigation of numerous criteria important for ATCS deployments and evaluation. Relevant data
are collected through literature reviews and surveys of deploying agencies and used to populate a
database of Assessment Tool for Adaptive Traffic Control ((AT)2C). The main purpose of the (AT)2C is to
help practitioners and researchers to identify, compare, assess, and monitor statistics of relevant ATCS
technologies, mainly from the perspective of their field benefits achieved in the field. The last sections
of the report give a sample of analyses that can be performed in this direction.

A Safe System-Based Framework and Analytical Methodology for Assessing Intersections, FHWA-SA-21-008, January
2021.

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/ssi/fhwasa21008.pdf

This report presents a Safe System for Intersections (SSI) method that intersection planners and
designers can readily implement, that dovetails with the typical U.S. project development process,
and that uses commonly available project-level data. The SSI method is presented in the context of a
Stage 1 Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE), at the scoping phase of project development. The method
incorporates concepts of conflict point identification and classification, exposure, kinetic energy transfer,
conflict point severity, and intersection movement complexity. Application of the SSI method results in
multiple measures of effectiveness (MOEs) and a set of SSI scores that characterize the extent to which
an intersection alternative in a given context aligns with the principles of kinetic energy management
and a Safe System. The SSI MOEs and SSI scores can serve as additional safety metrics to inform the
process of screening alternatives and identifying an optimal solution for an intersection. The report
includes an overview of Safe System concepts and principles, a detailed description of the SSI method,
example project applications, and a future vision for the method.




cxix
Appendicies



Low-Cost Safety Enhancements for Stop-Controlled and Signalized Intersections, FHWA-SA-09-020, July, 2020.

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/signal/fhwasa09020.pdf

This document presents information on suggested effective, low-cost intersection countermeasures
developed using intersection safety research results and input from an intersection safety expert panel.
These low-cost countermeasures can be applied to a large number of intersections with a high frequency
of crashes using a systematic approach. The net impact of such an approach can produce significant
reductions in statewide intersection crashes, fatalities, and serious injuries. Low-cost countermeasures
are defined as those ranging from $1,000 to $50,000 per intersection. The countermeasures include
signing and pavement marking, J-turn treatments, traffic signal countermeasures, lighting, high friction
surfaces and speed reductions.


ROADWAY SEGMENT STRATEGIES

FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures: Corridor Access Management, 2012

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/corridor_access_mgmt.cfm

One-page pdf that provides a listing of access management strategies (including raised medians that
preclude across-roadway movements), and a crash modification factor of 25 to 31% in fatal and injury
crashes along urban/suburban arterials.

Intersection Proven Safety Countermeasure Technical Summary: Corridor Access Management, FHWA-SA-15-005,
Updated July 2020

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/cam/fhwasa15005.pdf

This Technical Summary was prepared to assist transportation professionals with decisions pertaining
to Corridor Access Management, including planning, permitting, design, selection, and implementation.
This document provides a substantive overview of important access-related issues: safety performance
(i.e. crashes), effects on pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and community and business economic
impacts.

Intersection Proven Safety Countermeasure Technical Summary: Executive Summary: Corridor Access Management,
FHWA-SA-15-006

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/cam/fhwasa15006.pdf

Four-page document to summarize the FHWA report and highlight the key points with respect to
access management and summarizes CMFs for medians for access management..


cxx
Road Safety Action Plan: Moving To Vision Zero | City of Phoenix | September 2022



State of the Practice in Highway Access Management: A Synthesis of Highway Practice, NCHRP Synthesis 404, 2010

https://accessmanagement.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/nchrp_syn_404.pdf

This synthesis reports how various agencies have acted on the various components of an access
management program, what have been barriers to action, and how new efforts might improve
implementation of access management strategies. Primary focus areas considered are legal and
legislative bases, contents of policies and programs, implementation aspects, reported effectiveness of
program implementation, and profiles of contemporary practice. The emphasis is placed on states, but
counties, municipalities, and metropolitan planning organizations are also considered.

State Best Practice Policy for Medians, FHWA Safety Program, FHWA-SA-11-019, 2013

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/fhwasa11019/fhwasa11019.pdf

FHWA’s Safety Office has promoted the evidence-based safety benefits of raised medians (or refuge
areas). This flyer highlights three agencies that have implemented policies and plans that promote the
inclusion of raised medians: the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), the Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT), and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). Four-
page pamphlet

2014 Median Handbook, Florida DOT, Updated October 2017

https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default-source/planning/systems/systems-management/sm-old-files/am-and-si/fdot-
median-handbook-sept-2014-edits-10-25-2017.pdf?sfvrsn=401841d5_2

The purpose of this document is to guide the professional through the existing rules, standards and
procedures, as well as to provide current national guidance on the best ways to plan for medians and
median openings. It is a comprehensive guide to allow the professional to make the best decisions
on median planning. The primary thrust of this handbook is the unsignalized median opening. Even
though much of this material can be used with signalized intersection planning. Includes information
on medians for access management and landscaping and sight distance issues.

FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures: Medians and Pedestrian Crossing Islands in Urban and Suburban Areas,
FHWA-SA-12-011, 2012

https://www.eesi.org/files/cs-fhwa_medians.pdf

Two-page write-up on the benefits of raised medians and pedestrian crossing islands as proven Safety
Countermeasures.

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/ped_medians.cfm




cxxi
Appendicies



One page write-up and crash modification factor for the reduction of pedestrian crashes.

FHWA Lighting Handbook, August 2012

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/night_visib/lighting_handbook/pdf/fhwa_handbook2012.pdf

Provides guidance to designers and State, city, and town officials concerning the application of
roadway lighting. Supplementing and referring to other resources developed by AASHTO, IES, and
CIE this document contains information on: Policy and Guidance – discussing references, policy, and
recommendations used by FHWA in evaluating and administering funds for roadway and street lighting
projects; Basic Terms and Concepts; Warranting Criteria – including various warranting methods
available when considering lighting; Lighting Impacts – (both positive and negative) of lighting
systems and ways to control and mitigate; Application Considerations; and Other Systems and Issues
– discussing additional lighting and non-lighting elements impacting the roadway user.

Web-Based Training for FHWA Roadway Lighting Workshop Module 3: Street and Roadway Lighting Design, FHWA-
SA-18-035, May 2018

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/night_visib/roadway_lighting_workshop/Module3Workbook_021219.pdf

Participant workbook for Web-Based Training for FHWA Roadway Lighting Workshop, Module 3: Street
and Roadway Lighting Design. Module 3 covers lighting design criteria, calculations, field measurements,
and light pollution. Other modules include Module 1: Roadway Lighting Design Overview, Module
2: Lighting Hardware and Light Source Considerations for Roadway Lighting, and Module 4: Other
Roadway Lighting Topics. The modules for the FHWA Web-Based Training for FHWA Roadway Lighting
Workshop can be found at: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/night_visib/roadway_lighting_workshop/




cxxii
A Path Forward







Report