Oklahoma 2007 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.
State of Oklahoma
5% Report
Submitted, July, 2007
Oklahoma's 5% reports are compiled using a percentage of collisions by defined criteria. Three areas were identified: Rural roadway sections (10 mile segments), rural intersections and urban intersections. The top one hundred locations were evaluated in each area, with the top 5% or more locations reflected in the attached tables. (See table, ATTACHMENT 2, 3, & 4)
Oklahoma's data system is a fully integrated, containing a wide spectrum of data elements as required by the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC). All roadways, rural and urban, were included in the evaluation; however, in the rural area, the top 5% of all the locations evaluated were found to be on the state maintained highway system. The locations were ranked by our state's Severity Index ranking system, compiling the latest five years of data.
Data Analyst for Oklahoma is Ginger Miller at gmiller@odot.org , (405) 522-0985
ATTACHMENT 2
Highway Segments/Intersections Exhibiting the Most Severe Safety Needs - URBAN INTERSECTIONS
(Minimum of 5 %)
| Location | Potential Remedies | Estimated Costs | Implementation Impediments | Comments | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | I-44 & NW Expy, (Belle Isle), OKC | A, B | 50 K | C-1, C-2 | Awaiting implementation of SHSP |
| 2 | Int. Memorial Dr. & 61 St. S., Tulsa | C, D, H | 40 K | C-1, D-1 | Awaiting implementation of SHSP |
| 3 | Int. SH-3 (NW Expy) & Portland Ave., OKC. | B, C, D | 55 K | C-1, C-2 | Awaiting implementation of SHSP |
| 4 | Int. Memorial Dr. & 71 St. S., Tulsa | B, C, D, F, H | 105 K | C-1, C-2 | Awaiting implementation of SHSP |
| 5 | Int. SH-3 (NW Expy) & Rockwell , OKC | B, C, D, E | 130 K | C-1, C-2 | Awaiting implementation of SHSP |
| 6 | Int. SH-3 (NW Expy) & 63 St. N., OKC | B, C, D | 55 K | C-1, C-2 | Awaiting implementation of SHSP |
| 7 | Int. Memorial Dr. & 41 St. S., Tulsa | C, D, H | 40 K | C-1, C-2 | Awaiting implementation of SHSP |
| 8 | Int. US-169 & 71 St. S.,(E. Int.) Tulsa | C, D, G | 55 K | C-1, C-2 | Awaiting implementation of SHSP |
| 9 | Int. Yale Ave. & 31 St. S., Tulsa | A, B, D, H, | 70 K | C-1, C-2, H-1 | Awaiting implementation of SHSP |
| 10 | Int. Garnett Rd. & 21 St. S., Tulsa | B, C, H | 65 K | C-1, C-2 | Awaiting implementation of SHSP |
A Install near side signal indications
B Upgrade signal heads to be LED, more visible.
C Upgrade signal & interconnect timing, improve signal coordination, reduce dilemma zone issues.
C-1 City participation, and matching funding.
C-2 ODOT funding limitations.
D Install red light running confirmation lights, increase enforcement of red light running.
D-1 Bad public perception, increase enforcement.
E Install an exclusive right turn lane, improve separation of movements.
F Install video detection, use dynamic timing schemes to improve capacity.
G Target driveway relocation to reduce conflicting movements.
H Replace protected/permissive with protected only.
H-1 Skewed intersection, limited storage, multiple signals to close together, weaving problems
Additional Information Requested:
- Description of methodology used
- Extent of public road coverage
- Schedule for upgrading crash data system to full coverage (if applicable)
- Years used in data analysis
- State contact person/office
Date: July 16, 2007
ATTACHMENT 3
Highway Segments/Intersections Exhibiting the Most Severe Safety Needs - RURAL INTERSECTIONS
(Minimum of 5 %)
| Location | Potential Remedies | Estimated Costs | Implementation Impedements | Comments | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Int. US-75 & 116 St. N., Tulsa Co. | A | 65 K | C-2 | Awaiting final implementation of SHSP |
| 2 | Int. I-40B & Merritt Rd, Beckham Co | A | 65 K | C-2 | Awaiting final implementation of SHSP |
| 3 | Int. SH-66 & Gordon Rd, Rogers Co | A | 65 K | C-2 | Awaiting final implementation of SHSP |
| 4 | Int. SH-32 & Enos Rd.,Marshall Co. | A | 65 K | C-2 | Awaiting final implementation of SHSP |
| 5 | Int. SH-266 and 193 E. Ave., Rogers Co. | A | 65 K | C-2 | Awaiting final implementation of SHSP |
| 6 | SH-11 and 86 St. N.,Tulsa Co. | A | 65 K | C-2 | Awaiting final implementation of SHSP |
| 7 | Int. US-69 & SH-51B, Wagoner Co | A, F | 65 K | C-2 | Awaiting final implementation of SHSP |
| 8 | Int. US-77 & SH-11 W.(Kildare), Kay Co | A | 65 K | C-2 | Awaiting final implementation of SHSP |
| 9 | Int. SH-66 and SH-266 (E. Int.), Rogers Co | A,E | 65 K | C-2 | Awaiting final implementation of SHSP |
| 10 | Int. US-69 & Whitehorn/Snug Harbor Rd, Wagoner Co. | A, F | 65 K | C-2 | Awaiting final implementation of SHSP |
A Install traffic signal
B Upgrade signal heads to be LED, more visible.
C Upgrade signal & interconnect timing, improve signal coordination, reduce dilemma zone issues.
C-1 City participation, and matching funding.
C-2 ODOT funding limitations.
D Install red light running confirmation lights, increase enforcement of red light running.
D-1 Bad public perception, increase enforcement.
E Install an exclusive right turn lane , improve separation of movements.
F Install video detection, use dynamic timing schemes to improve capacity.
G Target driveway relocation to reduce conflicting movements.
H Replace protected/permissive with protected only.
H-1 Skewed intersection, limited storage, multiple signals to close together, weaving problems
Additional Information Requested:
- Description of methodology used
- Extent of public road coverage
- Schedule for upgrading crash data system to full coverage (if applicable)
- Years used in data analysis
- State contact person/office
Date:July 16, 2007
ATTACHMENT 4
Highway Segments/Intersections Exhibiting the Most Severe Safety Needs - All RURAL Roadways
(Minimum of 5 %)
| Location | Potential Remedies | Estimated Costs | Implementation Impediments | Comments | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | I-35, from MM 41, Carter Co., extending to US-77, MM 51, Murray Co. | C | E | Funding | Awaiting final implementation of SHSP |
| 2 | I-40, from MM 174, Pott. Co., extending to Acme Road UP, MM 183.5, Pottawatomie Co. | A, C | E | Funding | Awaiting final implementation of SHSP |
| 3 | I-35, from MM 97, McClain Co., extending to MM 107, McClain Co. | A, C | E | Funding | Awaiting final implementation of SHSP |
| 4 | SH-20, from 140 E. Ave, Tulsa Co., extending to Trailwood Drive, Rogers Co. | A, B, C, D | E | Funding | Awaiting final implementation of SHSP |
| 5 | I-35 from Red River, MM 00, Love Co., extending to MM 10, Love County | A, B, E | E | Funding | Awaiting final implementation of SHSP |
| 6 | SH-66, from Bird Creek Bridge, Rogers Co., extending to SH-20 , Rogers Co. | A, B, C | E | Funding | Awaiting final implementation of SHSP |
| 7 | US-70 from 1.50 miles E. of Marshall C/l, extending E. to Durant, Bryan County | A, B, D | E | Funding | Awaiting final implementation of SHSP |
| 8 | I-35 from Waterloo Rd, MM 147, extending to .40 mile S. of University Rd., MM 156.6, Logan Co. | A, B, C | E | Funding | Awaiting final implementation of SHSP |
| 9 | US-69 from Red River Br., MM 00 extending to Main St., Calera, MM 10, Bryan Co. | C, E | E | Funding | Awaiting final implementation of SHSP |
| 10 | US-69 from MM 76.6 Pittsburg Co., extending to US-69B, MM 86, Pittsburg Co. | C, D | E | Funding | Awaiting final implementation of SHSP |
A Collisions indicate 'unsafe speed' or 'following to close, ' as major causes of crashes. Enforcement and further analysis of this area is required before identifying potential remedies and cost estimates
B An improvement project has been scheduled for this segment during the 8-year Construction Work Plan 2007-2014
C Possible re-instatement of the state-wide guardrail upgrade an new installation project. Further analysis is required before identifying potential remedies and cost estimates.
D Modification of ramp merges and terminal locations. Further analysis is required before identifying potential remedies and cost estimates.
E Further analysis of each individual segment is required before estimated costs, potential remedies or impediments can be identified.
Additional Information Requested:
- Description of methodology used
- Extent of public road coverage
- Schedule for upgrading crash data system to full coverage (if applicable)
- Years used in data analysis
- State contact person/office
Date: July 12, 2007
