Nevada 2006 Five Percent Report
This report is in response to the Federal requirement that each state describe at least 5 percent of its locations currently exhibiting the most severe highway safety needs, in accordance with Sections 148(c)(1)(D) and 148(g)(3)(A), of Title 23, United States Code. Each state’s report is to include potential remedies to the hazardous locations identified; estimated costs of the remedies; and impediments to implementation of the remedies other than costs. The reports included on this Web site represent a variety of methods utilized and various degrees of road coverage. Therefore, this report cannot be compared with the other reports included on this Web site.
Protection from Discovery and Admission into Evidence—Under 23 U.S.C. 148(g)(4) information collected or compiled for any purpose directly relating to this report shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in the reports. |
Additional information, including the specific legislative requirements, can be found in the guidance provided by the Federal Highway Administration,
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/fiveguidance.htm.
Nevada Department of Transportation
Prepared by:
Kelly J. Anrig, P.E.
Safety Engineering Chief
Nevada Department of Transportation
1263 S. Stewart Street
Carson City, NV 89712
(775) 888-7459
kanrig@dot.state.nv.us
5% Report
Section 148(c)(1)(D) requires States to annually submit a report that describes not less than 5 percent of location exhibiting the most severe safety needs. Because Nevada has significant urban population centers in Las Vegas and Reno–Sparks–Carson City and vast rural areas with very different safety needs it was decided that NDOT would produce an urban 5 percent list and a separate rural 5 percent list.
In development of Nevada's Strategic Highway Safety Plan, fatal and severe injury crash data for the time period 1998–2002 was used. To keep this report in alignment with the SHSP, the same crash data was used for the rural analysis. The rural list involved spatial analyses on all public roads outside urban areas.
The urban analysis utilized the most recent HCL data list using 2000–2002 crash data. This data was filtered so that only fatal and injury crash data was used at locations within urban boundaries.
Rural Crash Data Summary
Data used for this analysis was the data used in the development of Nevada's Strategic Highway Safety Plan which included 1998–2002 Fatal and Severe Injury Crash statistics. This data includes 1714 fatalities in 1503 fatal crashes. A breakdown of this data shows:
- Alcohol
- 423 Fatal Crashes
- 464 Fatalities
- Alcohol related crashes accounts for 27% of all traffic fatalities
- Ran Off the Road Crashes
- 605 Fatal Crashes
- 675 Fatalities
- An average of 135 ran off road crashes per year accounts for 39% of all traffic fatalities
- Unbelted Vehicle Occupants
- 780 Fatalities occurred in which the vehicle occupant was unbelted
- 46% of all traffic fatalities involved unbelted vehicle occupants
- Serious Injury Data
- 7,476 Injuries occurred in 5,906 Total Injury Crashes
- 7,454 severely injured were vehicle occupants
- 2,229 unbelted vehicle occupants were severely injured
- 4,207 belted vehicle occupants were severely injured
- 1,261 Severely injured were pedestrians or pedalcyclists
- 1,270 Severe injuries occurred in alcohol related crashes
- 2,345 severe injuries occurred in 1,906 Ran of Roadway Crashes
- At signalized intersections there were 1,409 severe injuries resulting in 1,070 crashes
- Of the 1503 Total Fatal Crashes, 558 (37%) occurred on the rural routes being evaluated.
- Of the 5,906 serious injury crashes, 1,232 (21%) occurred on these same rural routes.
Routes Analyzed
The routes that were included in the rural 5 Percent analysis were all public Roads in Nevada where crashes occurred outside urban boundaries. The total Statewide mileage of these routes 5352 miles.
The total mileage of the Top Ten Segments was 80 Miles.
Methodology Used to Identify Rural Locations
To identify the rural 5 Percent list our GIS was used to perform spatial analyses on all public roads outside urban areas. Crash data was applied to these roads for crashes that involved only fatalities and type A injuries (the most severe type). PDO and crashes with minor injuries were not used.
A sliding mile analysis was applied, counting crashes and performing calculations to find hotspots with various weighted crash densities greater than 3 crashes per mile. A 5–mile buffer was then placed around each of the hotspots to develop contiguous segments.
In determining a ranking system, three different methodologies were evaluated.
These were:
- Weighted Crash Density (Weighted Crashes per Mile)
- Weighted Crash Rate (100MVMT)
- Weighted Ranking
- % Weighted Crash Density + % Weighted Crash Rate
The Weighted Crash Density method was chosen.
The contiguous segments were ranked by a weighted crash density (crashes per mile). The weighting factor used was one fatal crash is equated to two injury crashes. From this ranking a list of the top roadways was developed and potential mitigations along with implementation costs. This list is included in Tables 3 – 4 and shown on Figures 4 – 7.
Urban Crash Data Summary
The top 5% High Crash Location Intersections used data from the 2003 High Crash Book. This analysis used three years of data (2000–2002) and included only fatal and injury crashes. Property damage only (PDO) crashes were not used. The analysis included 636 urban intersections that are identified as High Crash Locations (intersection crashes are defined as all crashes within 100 feet of the intersection). This data set used contains 13,430 injury crashes involving 21,053 injuries and 47 fatal crashes involving 49 fatalities.
Methodology Used to Identify Urban Locations
To identify the urban 5 Percent list, our 2003 High Crash Location listing was used. This listing identified 636 urban high crash locations that included 13,430 injury crashes and 47 fatal crashes.
Both a fatality rate and injury rate were created for each HCL based on the number of fatalities or injuries per million vehicles entering the intersection. A severity rating of each location was calculated using 20% of the injury rate was combined with 80% of the fatality rate, multiplied by a factor of 100.
(0.20Ri + 0.80Rf)*100
The list of locations was then sorted by the severity rating. The top 5% (35) HCL intersections are shown in Table 5 and 6.
Potential remedies, estimated costs and impediments to implementation are shown in this Table.
Figure 4: Rural 5 Percent Statewide Map
Table 3: Top 5 Percent Rural Segments Weighted by Crash Density
| Map ID | Route Fullname | RMID | Length(miles) | County | Beginning Milepost | Ending Milepost | 2002ADT Avg | Crash Count | Wt Crash Count | Wt Fat Inj | Wt Crash Density (crashes per mile) | Wt Crash Rate 100VMT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | IR15N | 1 | 24.8 | CL | 0.7 | 25.4 | 39975 | 56 | 88 | 215 | 3.59 | 4.9 |
| 2 | US95AN/I–80 | 5 | 4.0 | CH | 17.9 | 21.0 | 6740 | 10 | 13 | 26 | 3.21 | 26.1 |
| 3 | SR159 | 28 | 8.1 | CL | 1.4 | 9.1 | 2150 | 17 | 26 | 35 | 3.20 | 81.6 |
| 4 | IR80E | 5 | 3.1 | WA | 23.4 | 26.5 | 21685 | 7 | 9 | 12 | 2.93 | 7.4 |
| 5 | IR80E | 5 | 7.2 | EL | 43.4 | 50.7 | 6820 | 15 | 20 | 55 | 2.77 | 22.3 |
| 6 | US93N/I–15 | 1 | 5.7 | CL | 58.5 | 64.1 | 19580 | 13 | 15 | 40 | 2.63 | 7.4 |
| 7 | US50 | 7 | 12.6 | CH | 5.8 | 18.5 | 12489 | 24 | 33 | 98 | 2.61 | 11.4 |
| 8 | IR80E | 5 | 5.9 | EL | 14.5 | 20.4 | 10300 | 11 | 15 | 31 | 2.56 | 13.6 |
| 9 | SR431 | 99 | 4.5 | WA | 11.6 | 16.1 | 6125 | 9 | 11 | 17 | 2.44 | 21.9 |
| 10 | IR80E | 5 | 4.2 | LA | 19.1 | 23.2 | 6550 | 8 | 10 | 15 | 2.41 | 20.1 |
| 1 | ||||||||||||
| Total for 10 Segments | 80.1 | Total for 10 Segments | 170 | |||||||||
| Total Statewide | 5351.6 | Total Statewide * | 1790 | |||||||||
| % of Total Mileage | 1.5 | % of Total Crashes | 9.5 | |||||||||
* Total Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes on Rural Routes (under analysis)
Table 4: 5 Percent Rural Segments – Mitigation and Costs
| Map ID | Route Fullname | Length (miles) | County | Beginning Milepost | Ending Milepost | Mitigation | Cost | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | IR15N | 24.8 | CL | 0.7 | 25.4 | Install 24" rumble strips and increase NHP enforcement | $525,780 | This is an upgrade to the existing rumble strip |
| 2 | US95AN/I–80 | 4.0 | CH | 17.9 | 21.0 | Install 24" rumble strips and increase NHP enforcement | $159,000 | This is an upgrade to the existing rumble strip |
| 3 | SR159 | 8.1 | CL | 1.4 | 9.1 | Install 24" rumble strips and 12" centerline rumble strips | $318,780 | This is an upgrade to the existing rumble strip |
| 4 | IR80E | 3.1 | WA | 23.7 | 26.5 | Install 24" rumble strips and increase NHP enforcement | $111,300 | This is an upgrade to the existing rumble strip |
| 5 | IR80E | 7.2 | EL | 43.4 | 50.7 | Install 24" rumble strips and increase NHP enforcement | $290,175 | This is an upgrade to the existing rumble strip |
| 6 | US93N/I–15 | 5.7 | CL | 58.5 | 64.1 | Install 24" rumble strips and increase NHP enforcement | $222,600 | This is an upgrade to the existing rumble strip |
| 7 | US50 | 12.6 | CH | 5.8 | 18.5 | Install 24" rumble strips and 12" centerline rumble strips | $525,780 | This is an upgrade to the existing rumble strip |
| 8 | IR80E | 5.9 | EL | 14.5 | 20.4 | Install 24" rumble strips and increase NHP enforcement | $234,525 | This is an upgrade to the existing rumble strip |
| 9 | SR431 | 4.5 | WA | 11.6 | 16.1 | Install 24" rumble strips and 12" centerline rumble strips | $186,300 | This is an upgrade to the existing rumble strip |
| 10 | IR80E | 4.2 | LA | 19.1 | 23.2 | Install 24" rumble strips and increase NHP enforcement | $162,975 | This is an upgrade to the existing rumble strip |
| Top 5% HCL Intersections | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MAIN_STREET | AT | CROSS_STREET | TOTAL CRASHES | INJURY CRASHES | NO. OF INJURYS | FATAL CRASHES | NO. OF FATALS | INJURY RATE | FATAL RATE | SEVERITY INDEX | |
| Clark | LAMB BLVD | @ | ALEXANDER ROAD | 40 | 20 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 3.22 | 0.00 | 64.31 |
| Clark | PEBBLE ROAD | @ | POLLOCK DRIVE | 36 | 22 | 34 | 0 | 0 | 3.01 | 0.00 | 60.29 |
| Clark | TONOPAH HIGHWAY | @ | VEGAS DR | 86 | 36 | 62 | 0 | 0 | 2.64 | 0.00 | 52.76 |
| Clark | DECATUR BLVD | @ | RENO AVENUE | 62 | 14 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 2.41 | 0.00 | 48.20 |
| Clark | FLAMINGO RD | @ | KOVAL LANE | 177 | 60 | 95 | 0 | 0 | 2.39 | 0.00 | 47.80 |
| Clark | HOTEL RIO DR | @ | INDUSTRIAL ROAD | 61 | 25 | 39 | 0 | 0 | 2.36 | 0.00 | 47.17 |
| Clark | RAINBOW BLVD | @ | VEGAS DR | 88 | 39 | 71 | 0 | 0 | 2.11 | 0.00 | 42.29 |
| Clark | ODDIE BLVD | @ | EL RANCHO DR | 70 | 32 | 75 | 0 | 0 | 2.07 | 0.00 | 41.39 |
| Washoe | SIERRA STREET | @ | I–80SIERRA ST INT R–1 | 67 | 22 | 38 | 0 | 0 | 1.97 | 0.00 | 39.44 |
| Clark | CHARLESTON BLVD | @ | ARLINGTON STREET | 79 | 47 | 94 | 2 | 2 | 1.70 | 0.04 | 36.94 |
| Clark | INDUSTRIAL ROAD | @ | NORTH BRIDGE LANE | 52 | 25 | 35 | 0 | 0 | 1.83 | 0.00 | 36.51 |
| Washoe | VIRGINIA STREET | @ | MC CARRAN BLVD | 144 | 50 | 74 | 0 | 0 | 1.80 | 0.00 | 36.10 |
| Clark | ODDIE BLVD | @ | SULLIVAN LANE (C) | 68 | 25 | 45 | 0 | 0 | 1.79 | 0.00 | 35.76 |
| Clark | AUDRIE STREET | @ | HARMON AVENUE | 43 | 7 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 1.78 | 0.00 | 35.64 |
| Douglas | SR 88 | @ | MOTTSVILLE LN / WATERLOO LN | 16 | 10 | 22 | 0 | 0 | 1.73 | 0.00 | 34.64 |
| Clark | MARYLAND PKWY | @ | SILVERADO RANCH BLVD | 34 | 9 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 1.67 | 0.00 | 33.41 |
| Clark | DECATUR BLVD | @ | HACIENDA AVENUE | 91 | 35 | 64 | 0 | 0 | 1.66 | 0.00 | 33.16 |
| Clark | US 93–95 (BLDR HWY) | @ | LAKE MEAD DR. | 264 | 79 | 114 | 0 | 0 | 1.62 | 0.00 | 32.36 |
| Washoe | I–80 CENTER ST INT R–3 | @ | CENTER STREET | 40 | 14 | 26 | 2 | 2 | 1.20 | 0.09 | 31.44 |
| Clark | LAKE MEAD BLVD | @ | CIVIC CENTER DR/EASTERN | 173 | 69 | 104 | 0 | 0 | 1.56 | 0.00 | 31.14 |
| Clark | ODDIE BLVD | @ | MONTELLO ST | 36 | 19 | 29 | 0 | 0 | 1.54 | 0.00 | 30.80 |
| Clark | RAINBOW BLVD | @ | SPRING VALLEY PKWY (NORTH) | 76 | 42 | 71 | 0 | 0 | 1.53 | 0.00 | 30.68 |
| Clark | FREMONT STREET | @ | MARYLAND PARKWAY | 61 | 20 | 25 | 1 | 1 | 1.28 | 0.05 | 29.78 |
| Clark | JONES BLVD | @ | SPRING MOUNTAIN RD | 138 | 49 | 97 | 0 | 0 | 1.48 | 0.00 | 29.55 |
| Clark | ALTA DRIVE | @ | TOWN CENTER DR | 39 | 18 | 35 | 0 | 0 | 1.44 | 0.00 | 28.80 |
| Clark | OGDEN AVE | @ | 4TH STREET | 33 | 14 | 21 | 1 | 1 | 1.20 | 0.06 | 28.56 |
| Clark | FASHION SHOW DRIVE | @ | SPRING MOUNTAIN RD | 164 | 42 | 78 | 0 | 0 | 1.42 | 0.00 | 28.38 |
| Clark | CHARLESTON BLVD | @ | HINSON STREET | 77 | 38 | 62 | 1 | 1 | 1.32 | 0.02 | 28.00 |
| Clark | EASTERN AVE | @ | WASHINGTON AVENUE | 79 | 36 | 61 | 0 | 0 | 1.40 | 0.00 | 27.96 |
| Clark | DESERT INN RD | @ | BACKSTAGE BLVD | 63 | 34 | 61 | 0 | 0 | 1.39 | 0.00 | 27.85 |
| Clark | MARYLAND PARKWAY | @ | STEWART AVENUE | 30 | 17 | 22 | 0 | 0 | 1.39 | 0.00 | 27.71 |
| Clark | ALEXANDER ROAD | @ | PECOS ROAD | 48 | 23 | 47 | 0 | 0 | 1.38 | 0.00 | 27.58 |
| Clark | MAIN STREET | @ | OAKEY BLVD. | 59 | 26 | 38 | 0 | 0 | 1.37 | 0.00 | 27.32 |
| Clark | BELL DRIVE | @ | DECATUR BLVD | 46 | 22 | 48 | 0 | 0 | 1.36 | 0.00 | 27.14 |
| Washoe | VIRGINIA STREET | @ | I–80 VIRGINIA ST INT R–4 | 73 | 23 | 33 | 0 | 0 | 1.35 | 0.00 | 27.04 |
| SEVERITY INDEX | MAIN STREET | AT | CROSS STREET | MITIGATION | PROJECT COST | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 64.31 | LAMB BLVD | @ | ALEXANDER ROAD | Install new signal system | $ 350,000.00 | New signal system installed in mid 2003,Injurys coming down. |
| 60.29 | PEBBLE ROAD | @ | POLLOCK DRIVE | Install new signal system | $ 350,000.00 | New signal system installed in mid 2005 |
| 52.76 | TONOPAH HIGHWAY | @ | VEGAS DR | Upgrade existing signal system | $ 230,000.00 | Protected/permise phasing changed in 2002, third lane added in 2003 |
| 48.20 | DECATUR BLVD | @ | RENO AVENUE | Install new signal system | $ 350,000.00 | Project not yet programed |
| 47.80 | FLAMINGO RD | @ | KOVAL LANE | Install Red Light Running cameras | $ 80,000.00 | Current law restricts the use of Red Light Running Cameras |
| 47.17 | HOTEL RIO DR | @ | INDUSTRIAL ROAD | Improve left–turn markings | $ 500,000.00 | This would require a mill and overlay of the intersection & better striping tape |
| 42.29 | RAINBOW BLVD | @ | VEGAS DR | Widen roadway and improve signal system | $ 1,500,000.00 | Work is being completed by development on the northwest side of Rainbow |
| 41.39 | ODDIE BLVD | @ | EL RANCHO DR | Install Left–turn protected phasing | $ 200,000.00 | Project to becompleted in 2007 |
| 39.44 | SIERRA STREET | @ | I–80 SIERRA ST INT R–1 | Modify existingsystem | $ 180,000.00 | Project completed in 2005 |
| 36.94 | CHARLESTON BLVD | @ | ARLINGTON STREET | Install median island | $ 80,000.00 | Project completed in 2004 |
| 36.51 | INDUSTRIAL ROAD | @ | NORTH BRIDGE LANE | Install left–turn phasing southbound | $ 30,000.00 | No project at this time |
| 36.10 | VIRGINIA STREET | @ | MC CARRAN BLVD | Improve right–turn lane on off–ramp | $ 100,000.00 | Project completed in 2004 |
| 35.76 | ODDIE BLVD | @ | SULLIVAN LANE (C) | Install Left–turn | $ 200,000.00 | Project to be completed in 2007 |
| 35.64 | AUDRIE STREET | @ | HARMON AVENUE | Upgrade existing signal system | $ 300,000.00 | Project completed as part of the Monorail construction in 2004 |
| 34.64 | SR 88 | @ | MOTTSVILLE LN / WATERLOO LN | Install new signal system | $ 285,000.00 | Project completed in 2003 |
| 33.41 | MARYLAND PKWY | @ | SILVERADO RANCH BLVD | Install Left–turn protected phasing | $ 220,000.00 | Project completed in 2004 |
| 33.16 | DECATUR BLVD | @ | HACIENDA AVENUE | Install Left–turn protected phasing | $ 100,000.00 | Project completed in 2003 |
| 32.36 | US 93–95 (BLDR HWY) | @ | LAKE MEAD DR. | Install Red Light Running cameras | $ 80,000.00 | Current law restricts the use of Red Light Running Cameras |
| 31.44 | I–80 CENTER ST INT R–3 | @ | CENTER STREET | Modify existing system | $ 200,000.00 | Project completed in 2005 |
| 31.14 | LAKE MEAD BLVD | @ | CIVIC CENTER DR/EASTERN | Install dual Left–turn protected phasing on Lake MeadBlvd | $ 300,000.00 | Project is to be completed in late 2006 or early 2007 |
| 30.80 | ODDIE BLVD | @ | MONTELLO ST | Install north and southbound protected left–turn phasing | $ 65,000.00 | Project not yet programmed |
| 30.68 | RAINBOW BLVD | @ | SPRING VALLEY PKWY (NORTH) | Install protected left–turn phasing | $ 350,000.00 | Project not yet programmed |
| 29.78 | FREMONT STREET | @ | MARYLAND PARKWAY | Install protected left–turn phasing on Fremont St. | $ 250,000.00 | Current 4–lane configuration of Fremont St. does not allow for protected phasing |
| 29.55 | JONES BLVD | @ | SPRING MOUNTAIN RD | Install protected left–turn phasing | $ 800,000.00 | Project not yet programmed |
| 28.80 | ALTA DRIVE | @ | TOWN CENTER DR | Install time of day protected left–turn phasing | $ 100,000.00 | Project not yet programmed |
| 28.56 | OGDEN AVE | @ | 4TH STREET | Improve pedestrian phase timing | $ 50,000.00 | Project not yet programmed |
| 28.38 | FASHION SHOW DRIVE | @ | SPRING MOUNTAIN RD | Improve coordination along Spring Mountain Rd. | $ 5,000.00 | Timing reviewed and modified in 2004 |
| 28.00 | CHARLESTON BLVD | @ | HINSON STREET | Improve capacity at Charleston at Valley View, reducing delay and back up at Hinson St. | $ 650,000.00 | Project to be completed in 2007 |
| 27.96 | EASTERN AVE | @ | WASHINGTON AVENUE | Install protected left–turn phasing on Washington Ave. | $ 30,000.00 | Project completed in 2004 |
| 27.85 | DESERT INN RD | @ | BACKSTAGE BLVD | Install median island | $ 150,000.00 | Project not yet programmed |
| 27.71 | MARYLAND PARKWAY | @ | STEWART AVENUE | Install two new signal poles | $ 75,000.00 | Project not yet programmed |
| 27.58 | ALEXANDER ROAD | @ | PECOS ROAD | Install time of day protected left–turn phasing | $ 100,000.00 | Project not yet programmed |
| 27.32 | MAIN STREET | @ | OAKEY BLVD. | Install time of day protected left–turn phasing | $ 100,000.00 | Project not yet programmed |
| 27.14 | BELL DRIVE | @ | DECATUR BLVD | Install median island | $ 200,000.00 | Project not yet programmed |
| 27.04 | VIRGINIA STREET | @ | I–80 VIRGINIA ST INT R–4 | Modify existing system | $ 180,000.00 | Project completed in 2005 |
