DETERMINING CRITERIA FOR SELECTING RED LIGHT CAMERA LOCATIONS

by

MANSOUR ABDULHAMID ALTURKI

MEng, University of Colorado Denver, 2008

MBA, University of Colorado Denver, 2008

BS, King Saud University, 2005

A thesis submitted to the

Faculty of the Graduate School of the

University of Colorado in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Civil Engineering Program

2014

ii

This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy degree by

Mansour ALTurki

has been approved for the

Civil Engineering Program

by

Bruce Janson, Chair

Wesley Marshall, Advisor

Juan Robles

Gary Kochenberger

Bob Kois

May 2, 2014

iii

Mansour AbdulHamid ALTurki (Ph.D., Civil Engineering)

Determining Criteria for Selecting Red Light Camera Location

Thesis directed by Professor Bruce Janson

ABSTRACT The objective of this dissertation is to develop a systematic method and criteria for

selecting effective (i.e., severe crash reducing) red light camera locations among all

signalized intersections of a given jurisdiction. Another objective is to develop criteria

that can be implemented using accessible data while maintaining the comprehensiveness

feature of the criteria. Selecting locations for red light cameras has received less attention

by researchers of transportation engineering than assessing their effectiveness in reducing

crashes. However, better site selection rules can result in greater effectiveness, which is

the main goal of installing red light cameras. The methodology was divided into two

phases that is mostly based on statistical criteria, but with more field investigations in the

second phase. The first phase includes five criteria, which are, (i) crash severity level, (ii)

normalized crash severity level, (iii) potential for improvement in terms of crash rate, (iv)

potential for improvement in terms of crash frequency, and (v) crash types. The second

phase includes six other criteria, which are, (i) fluctuation of crashes, (ii) vehicle types,

(iii) economic evaluation, (iv) intersection characteristics, (v) approach determination,

and (vi) red light locations. The study applies its methodology to three major cities in

Colorado; these are Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, and Denver. The study found red

light camera candidate intersections that are very consistent with the city engineers’

opinions of potentially effective locations and the history of crash data from Denver since

2003.

The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication.

Approved: Bruce Janson

iv

DEDICATION

This dissertation is lovingly dedicated to my mother, Mrs. Eman ALTurki, for her

encouragement, and constant love that have sustained me throughout my life, Without her,

I won’t be at this level of education.

To my father Mr. AbdulHamid ALTurki who has been my silent inspiration and my

support when hard times come around.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am most grateful to the members of my committee, Mr. Bob Kois, Prof. Gary

Kochenberger, and Mr. Juan Robles for their time, encouragement, and expertise

throughout this project. Special thanks to Prof. Bruce Janson (the Chairman of the

Committee) and Prof. Wesley Marshall (my advisor), for their exquisite attention to detail,

patience and for their continuous demand for excellence. Prof. Bruce and Prof. Wes have

been more than advisors to me.

There are people in everyone’s lives who make success both possible and rewarding. My

wife, Ahoud ALSharaia, my children, Eman ALTurki, and Nawaf ALTurki steadfastly

supported and encouraged me.

Dr. Saleh ALSoghair, Eng, Dino Bakkar, and Eng. Andy Richter I will never forget the

support and encouragement you provided to me by facilitating many obstacles that came

on my way to this accomplishment.

My friend Eng. Ziyad ALBathi helped, cajoled, and prodded me when I needed it the

most.

For my uncle Abdullah ALTurki, my father in law Mr. Ahmad ALSharaia, and my

neighbors Mr. Tim Garduno and Mrs. Wendy Garduno for their support and effort that

they made sure to give to me in many occasions.

I also like to give special thanks to Anderson Academic Commons Library at the

University of Denver for providing me with the all the resources I needed during my

research time.

vi

Without the support of my siblings Malath , Malak, Maram, Nourh, Hamad, and

Abdullah, pursuit of this advanced degree would never have been started.

Thank you, ALL, now and always.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER

I. PROBLEM STATEMENT.............................................................................................. 1

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1

Statement of Problem ...................................................................................................... 2

Main Questions ............................................................................................................... 3

Study Objectives ............................................................................................................. 3

Hypotheses and Contribution to the Transportation Engineering Industry and Public

Safety .............................................................................................................................. 4

Limitations to the Study .................................................................................................. 5

II. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................ 6

Traffic Safety Overview ................................................................................................. 6

History of Red Light Camera Systems ........................................................................... 8

Glossary of Terms ......................................................................................................... 11

Vehicle Detection and Surveillance Technologies ....................................................... 12

Implications for Public Privacy .................................................................................... 18

Impact on Revenue ....................................................................................................... 19

Study Timeline .............................................................................................................. 21

Dissertation Structure.................................................................................................... 22

III. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................... 24

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 24

Effectiveness of RLC on Safety .................................................................................... 24

viii

Effectiveness of RLC on Type of Crashes .................................................................... 33

Effectiveness of RLC on Crashes Severity ................................................................... 38

Characteristics of Red Light Runners ........................................................................... 43

RLC and Signal Timings .............................................................................................. 49

Methodologies and Procedures Used for RLC Analysis .............................................. 50

RLC Spillover Effect (Halo Effect) .............................................................................. 53

RLC Site Selections ...................................................................................................... 57

IV. METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 62

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 62

Why These Locations as Case Studies? ........................................................................ 62

Data Required and Field Investigation ......................................................................... 63

Methodology ................................................................................................................. 66

Phase I “Includes Four Criteria” ................................................................................... 66

Phase II “Includes Seven Criteria” ............................................................................... 74

Expected Findings ......................................................................................................... 87

V. ANALYSES AND FINDINGS ................................................................................... 88

Section I: Analyses of RLC Sites Selection for Colorado Springs ............................... 88

Section II: Further Analysis and Field Investigation of Top 10 RLC Candidates in

Colorado Springs .......................................................................................................... 95

Section I: Analyses of RLC Sites Selection for Fort Collins. ..................................... 106

Section I: Analyses of RLC Sites Selection for Denver ............................................. 122

ix

Section II: Further Analysis and Field Investigation of Top 10 RLC Candidates in

Denver ......................................................................................................................... 129

Recommednations and Conclusions………………………..………………………..144

WORKS CITED ............................................................................................................. 151

APPENDIX ..................................................................................................................... 157

x

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE

1. Number and rank of motor vehicles traffic fatalities as a cause of death in the United

States. 1981-2009 (Subramanian, 2009) ..................................................................... 7

2. The Hague traffic police put a sort of monocular. (Gatsometer, 2010) .......................... 9

3. Older RLC in Ludwigsburg, Germany. (Lowe, 2006) .................................................. 10

4. Distribution of the loop’s electromagnetic field. (Hockaday, 1991) ............................ 13

5. Loop location at the intersection. (Kell, 1990) ............................................................. 14

6. Loop sensors reflect damages to the asphalt. (Kell, 1990) ........................................... 15

7. Speed limit cameras can take shapes of normal road elements. (Klein, Millimeter-

Wave and Infrared Multisensor Design and Signal Processing, 1997) .................... 16

8. Intrusive sensors and camera requires less effort and no damages. (Klein, Final Report:

Mobile Surveillance and Wireless Communication Systems Field Operational Test -

Vol. 2: FOT Objectives, Organization, System Design, Results, Conclusions, and

Recommendations, 1999) ......................................................................................... 17

9. The proportion of crashes occurring at monitored approaches vs. non-monitored

approaches. (Dahnke, Stevenson, Stein, & Lomax, 2008) ....................................... 27

10. Percentage of crash type in Scottsdale for 14-year period. (Shin & Washington, 2007)

................................................................................................................................... 37

11. Percentage of crashes per year by crash type and severity (PDO vs. injury and fatal).

(Shin & Washington, 2007) ...................................................................................... 41

12. Percentage of crashes per year by crash type and severity (minor vs. major). (Shin &

Washington, 2007) .................................................................................................... 42

xi

13. Normalized red light violation values by age group (Yang & Najm, 2006) ............... 47

14. Distributions of red light violation records by vehicle speed (Yang & Najm, 2006) . 47

15. Distribution of red light violation by time of day (Yang & Najm, 2006) ................... 48

16. A photo taken from a camera for an accident involving RLR (Administration, 2005)

................................................................................................................................... 51

17. Intersections studied in Arlington Virginia (McCartt & Hu, 2013)............................ 55

18. Illustration of the term potential for improvement. .................................................... 69

19. Calculation of crash type rate (ALTurki, 2013) .......................................................... 72

20. A vandalized RLC in Phoenix Arizona. (Garrett, 2011) ............................................ 81

21. Colorado Springs reported crashes in relation to annual average daily traffic ........... 91

22. Briargate Py & N Powers Bl (Google Maps)............................................................. 98

23. Airport Rd & S Academy Bl (Google Maps) ............................................................. 99

24. E Woodmen Rd/I-25 (Google Maps) .......................................................................... 99

25. E Platte Av & N Academy Bl (Google Maps) .......................................................... 100

26. Barnes Rd & N Powers Blvd .................................................................................... 100

27. E Platte Ave & N Union Blvd................................................................................... 101

28. N Academy Blvd & Vickers Dr (Google Maps) ...................................................... 101

29. N Powers Blvd & Stetson Hills Blvd ........................................................................ 102

30. Maizeland Rd & N Academy Blvd .......................................................................... 102

31. Dublin Blvd & N Union Blvd. (Google Maps)......................................................... 103

32. Final RLC locations (Colorado Springs) .................................................................. 105

33. Fort Collins reported crashes in relation to annual average daily traffic .................. 109

34. College Ave & Monroe. (Google Maps) .................................................................. 114

xii

35. Timberline Rd & Horsetooth Rd. (Google Maps) .................................................... 115

36. Lemay & Harmony. (Google Maps) ......................................................................... 115

37. College Ave & Tribly Rd. (Google Maps) ............................................................... 116

38. College Ave & Horsetooth Rd. (Google Maps)........................................................ 116

39. S Shields St & W Plum St. (Google Maps) .............................................................. 117

40. Timberline Rd & Drake Rd. (Google Maps) ............................................................ 117

41. Shields St & Mulberry St. (Google Maps)................................................................ 118

42. Shields St & Elizabeth St. (Google Maps)................................................................ 118

43. Ziegler Rd & Rock Creek Dr. (Google Maps) .......................................................... 119

44. Final RLC locations (Fort Collins) ........................................................................... 121

45. Denver's reported crashes in relation to annual average daily traffic. ...................... 125

46. E Alameda Ave & Leetsdale Dr. (Google Maps) ..................................................... 132

47. W Colfax Ave & N Kalamath St. (Google Maps) .................................................... 133

48. Leetsdale Dr & Quebec St. (Google Maps) .............................................................. 133

49. S Monaco St & Leetsdale Dr. (Google Maps) .......................................................... 134

50. E 6th Ave & N Lincoln Blvd. (Google Maps) ........................................................... 134

51. W Mississippi Ave & S Platte River Dr. (Google Maps) ......................................... 135

52. N Colorado Blvd & E Colfax Ave. (Google Maps) ................................................. 135

53. S Federal Blvd & W Alameda Ave. (Google Maps) ................................................ 136

54. E Alameda Ave & S Monoco St (Google Maps) ...................................................... 136

55. S University Blvd & E Evans Ave. (Google Maps) ................................................. 137

56. Final RLC locations (Denver) ................................................................................... 139

xiii

57. Trend of total crashes before and after the year of RLC installation at four signalized

intersections in Denver ........................................................................................... 140

58. Trend of front to side type of crashes before and after the year of RLC installation at

four signalized intersections in Denver................................................................... 141

59. Trend of rear end type of crashes before and after the year of RLC installation at four

signalized intersections in Denver .......................................................................... 142

60. City of Denver warns drivers to drive safely as they approach the intersection of S

University Blvd & E Evans Ave. ............................................................................ 146

xiv

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE

1. RLC effectiveness on safety at Fairfax County, Virginia (Hobeika & Yaungyai, 2006)

................................................................................................................................... 29

2. Summary of the recent studies of RLC effectiveness on safety ................................... 32

3. Results of one-year before/after study Sacramento California (McGee & Eccles, 2006)

................................................................................................................................... 34

4. Before and after changes in crashes, Sydney, Australia (Hillier, Ronczka, & Schnerring,

1993) ......................................................................................................................... 35

5. Results for individual jurisdictions for total crashes (Administration, 2005) ............... 36

6. The distribution of crashes by severity for all signalized intersections 1997 (McGee &

Eccles, 2006) ............................................................................................................. 38

7. Percent of last drivers running a red light by demographic category. (Martinez & Porter,

2006) ......................................................................................................................... 44

8. Unit crash cost estimates by severity level used in the economic effects analysis.

(Federal Highway Administration, 2005) ................................................................. 52

9. Observed red light violation rates per 10,000 vehicles by time into red signal phase and

percentage changes 1 month and 1 year after red light camera ticketing began,

compared with warning period. (McCartt & Hu, 2013) ........................................... 56

10. Data required for RLC sites selection Criterion ......................................................... 65

11. Weighting percentages for criterions in Phase I. (Colorado Springs) ........................ 73

12. Weighting percentages for criterions in Phase I. (Fort Collins) ................................. 73

13. Weighting percentages for criterions in Phase I. (Denver) ......................................... 73

xv

14. Pre-calculated yellow intervals at various speeds. ...................................................... 80

15. Sample of field evaluation table used to evaluate intersection characteristics. .......... 81

16. Table used for determining numbers of “at-fault vehicles” in each approach ............ 82

17. Formulas used to obtain final findings........................................................................ 83

18. Ranking of top 10 RLC candidates in Colorado Springs based on normalized crash

severity level. ............................................................................................................ 89

19 Ranking of top 10 RLC candidates in Colorado Springs based on crash severity. ..... 89

20. Ranking of top 10 RLC candidates in Colorado Springs based on potential for

improvement in relation to crash rate. ...................................................................... 90

21. Ranking of top 10 RLC candidates in Colorado Springs based on potential for

improvement in relation to crash Frequency. ........................................................... 90

22. Ranking of top 10 RLC candidates in Colorado Springs based on crash type. .......... 91

23. Final top 10 RLC candidates in Colorado Springs for all criteria in phase I. ............. 93

24. Intersections field evaluation of Colorado Springs top 10 RLC candidates. .............. 96

25. Number of at fault vehicles per approach (Colorado Springs) ................................. 104

26. Ranking of top 10 RLC candidates in Fort Collins based on normalized crash severity

level. ........................................................................................................................ 107

27. Ranking of top 10 RLC candidates in Fort Collins based on crash severity level.... 107

28. Ranking of top 10 RLC candidates in Fort Collins based on potential for

improvement in relation to crash rate. .................................................................... 108

29. Ranking of top 10 RLC candidates in Fort Collins based on potential for

improvement in relation to crash Frequency. ......................................................... 108

30. Ranking of top 10 RLC candidates in Fort Collins based on crash type. ................. 109

xvi

31. Final top 10 RLC candidates in Fort Collins for all criteria in phase I. .................... 110

32. Intersection evaluation table (Fort Collins) ............................................................. 112

33. Number of at fault vehicles per approach (Fort Collins) .......................................... 120

34. Ranking of top 10 RLC candidates in Denver based on normalized crash severity

level ......................................................................................................................... 123

35. Ranking of top 10 RLC candidates in Denver based on normalized crash severity

level ......................................................................................................................... 123

36. Ranking of top 10 RLC candidates in Fort Collins based on potential for

improvement in relation to crash rate. .................................................................... 124

37. Ranking of top 10 RLC candidates in Fort Collins based on potential for

improvement in relation to crash rate. .................................................................... 124

38. Ranking of top 10 RLC candidates in Denver based on crash type.......................... 125

39. Final top 10 RLC candidates in Denver for all criteria in phase I. ........................... 127

40. Intersection evaluation table (Denver) ...................................................................... 130

41. Number of at fault vehicles per approach (Denver) .................................................. 138

42. Total crashes by year in current RLC locations in Denver. ...................................... 140

43. Front to side type of crashes by year in current RLC locations in Denver. .............. 141

44. Rear end type of crashes by year in current RLC locations in Denver. .................... 141

45. Analysis of Colorado Springs intersections based on crash severity level and

normalized crash severity level. .............................................................................. 157

46. Colorado Springs intersections ranked based on normalized crash severity level. .. 161

47. Colorado Springs intersections ranked based on crash severity level. ..................... 164

xvii

48. Analysis of Colorado Springs Intersections based on potential for improvement in

relation to crash rate and crash frequency............................................................... 167

49. Colorado Springs intersections ranked based on potential for improvement in relation

to crash rate. ............................................................................................................ 171

50. Colorado Springs intersections ranked based on potential for improvement in relation

to crash frequency. .................................................................................................. 174

51. Analysis of Colorado Springs intersections based on crash types ............................ 177

52. Colorado Springs intersections ranked based on front to side rate. .......................... 180

53. Analysis of Fort Collins intersections based on crash severity level and normalized

crash severity level. ................................................................................................. 183

54. Fort Collins intersections ranked based on normalized crash severity level. ........... 187

55. Fort Collins intersections ranked based on crash severity level. .............................. 190

56. Analysis for potential for improvement for all intersections of Fort Collins in relation

to crash rate and frequency. .................................................................................... 193

57. Fort Collins intersections ranked based on potential for improvement in relation to

crash rate. ................................................................................................................ 198

58. Fort Collins intersections ranked based on potential for improvement in relation to

crash frequency ....................................................................................................... 201

59. Analysis of Fort Collins intersections based on crash types ..................................... 204

60. Fort Collins intersections ranked based on front to side crashes. ............................. 208

61. Analysis of Denver intersections based on crash severity level and normalized crash

severity level. .......................................................................................................... 211

62. Denver intersections ranked based on normalized crash severity level. ................... 222

xviii

63. Denver intersections ranked based on crash severity level. ...................................... 230

64. Analysis of potential for improvement for Denver intersections based on crash rate

and frequency. ......................................................................................................... 238

65. Denver intersections ranked based on potential for improvement in relation to crash

rate........................................................................................................................... 250

66. Denver intersections ranked based on potential for improvement in relation to crash

frequency................................................................................................................. 258

67. Analysis for Denver intersections based on crash types. .......................................... 266

68. Denver intersections ranked based on front to side crashes. .................................... 277

xix

LIST OF EQUATIONS EQUATION 1. Normalized- crash serverity level ................................................................................. 67

2. Crash severity level ....................................................................................................... 67

3. PFI in crash rate ............................................................................................................ 69

4. Annual crash rate .......................................................................................................... 70

5. Average crash rate......................................................................................................... 70

6. Crash frequency ............................................................................................................ 71

7. Proportionality to obtain relative weights ..................................................................... 72

8. collision cofefficieient of variation ............................................................................... 74

9. Sample mean ................................................................................................................. 74

10. Fluctuation of crashes by calculating the standard mean ............................................ 75

11. Type of vehciles by calculating Chi-square test. ........................................................ 75

12. RLC Economic evaluation. ......................................................................................... 76

1

CHAPTER I

PROBLEM STATEMENT

Introduction

The condition of being protected against physical, economic, emotional,

educational, political, occupational, or any other aspects that could be damaged or

harmed is the definition of safety. (Federal Highway Administration, 2012) Recently,

public safety, as one of the major safety categories, has received more attention due to the

fact that it is directly related to humans’ lives and health, which is considered as a

significant indication of better developments and communities.

Keeping in mind all the developments and advancements associated with today’s

technologies and environmental regulations, public safety has become even more

challenging to achieve. Promoting public safety in systems like medical and health safety,

building safety, and so on is very important, but it is even more important when it relates

to the transportation system.

The transportation system requires the highest level of safety due to the number of

users involved in the system every day, as well as the nature of risks people can suffer as

a result of the system being unsafe. One of the most dangerous and risky traffic related

violations is red light running, which is a behavior that can cause some of the most

serious injuries and fatalities the transportation system may generate.

In the United States and during the year of 2010 alone, almost 50 percent of all

crashes reported to the police occurred at intersections. In fact and according to the

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, signalized intersections accounted for more than

2

68,000 serious non-fatal injuries and 7707 deaths in 2010 alone. (Insurance Institute for

Highway Safety, 2012).

As a result, many transportation agencies, organizations, departments and

communities across the nation like the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), seek to address crashes and

reduce both injuries and fatalities by increasingly looking for tools to supplement

traditional enforcement resources. One of the safety tools that over 550 US communities

have employed is a red light camera (RLC). (National Safety Council, 2009)

The first chapter of this study starts by explaining the statement of problem the

study addresses in addition to representing the main questions, and research objectives.

This chapter will also demonstrate how this study could contribute to the civil

engineering science in general and more specifically to the transportation engineering

field despite the limitations that are usually associated with similar studies.

Statement of Problem

Many of the post-implementation evaluations that were conducted to measure the

effectiveness of red light cameras (RLC) have shown an overall effectiveness in reducing

the frequency of crashes at intersections where red light cameras are operated, although

there are exceptions in some cases.

As it will be illustrated in the literature review, most studies that researched the

effectiveness of RLC on safety were mostly making before/after crash comparisons.

Other studies investigated more details regarding the types and severity of crashes

associated with RLC. In comparison, fewer studies discussed other important areas of

3

research that could show significant indication of RLC effectiveness on safety such as the

RLC sites selection.

This study will examine one of the critical elements that is usually associated with

the installation or expansion of RLC systems, which is the selection of RLC sites that

have the greatest potential to improve safety. The study will also demonstrate its

practically by applying the methodology to three major cities of Colorado; which are

Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, and Denver.

Main Questions

This study will try to answer the following questions in order to achieve the study goals:

1) In Colorado Springs, the City discontinued the RLC program after one year of

installation (2010) due to unsuccessful results. If we go back to 2010, what kind

of criteria could be used to make selection of specific intersections within the city

limit and therefore could possibly make the RLC program more effective and

show successful results?

2) In Denver and Fort Collins, the costly system has been under operation for at

least 10 years. Are these cities making the best choices when selecting the

locations of their RLC systems? Can that be supported in a scientific way?

Study Objectives

This study aims to provide a RLC site selection methodology based on analytical

procedures that require accessible data that will be obtainable by any community to select

RLC sites with greatest potential so the selection becomes more systematic. This study

intends to use some statistical models that will be presented in more detail as part of the

methodology chapter. Additionally, this study aims to form a more obvious picture of the

4

effectiveness of RLC programs on reducing red light running crashes and their potential

safety improvement when comparing the current RLC sites to the candidate sites

concluded in the analysis chapter.

Hypotheses and Contribution to the Transportation Engineering Industry and Public Safety

The following are two primary motivations and potential benefits of this study:

1) An analytical-based site selection methodology increases the effectiveness of red

light camera programs.

2) Comprehensive and scientific RLC criteria can positively impact public opinion

about RLC system.

This study aims to contribute to the transportation industry from different points

of view. The following bullets describe these contributions:

1) This study will provide transportation agencies, planners, engineers, and

researchers with statistical figures and findings related to one of the least

researched areas, which is RLC sites selection (according to the literature review).

2) This study will contribute to the field of civil engineering and transportation by

reviewing the RLC experiences in Denver and Fort Collins.

3) This study provides an analytical-based methodology for RLC site selection that

can be used by any city in implementing a RLC program to potentially improve

public safety.

4) The study will apply its methodology to three major cities of Colorado; which are

Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, and Denver.

5

5) It is also important to note that the analytical-based methodology mentioned

above is formed based on the sort of data that most of the cities around the world

have access to, which makes it a more usable methodology.

Limitations to the Study

Accurately assessing candidates with potential to be equipped with RLC is

challenging for several reasons:

1) Many safety related factors are uncontrolled and/or confounded during the

periods of observation.

2) Availability and accuracy of data may not be accessible at the needed level.

3) The variety and number of agencies involved in such programs can make it

more challenging to find accurate and consistent data.

6

CHAPTER II

BACKGROUND Traffic Safety Overview

Road traffic safety means reducing accident causes on the road through improved

vehicles, facilities, and driving practices. Road and vehicle design, driver impairment,

speed of operation, and other factors like proper signal timing, better signal design,

improved intersection design, and many more are all considered factors that could

decrease or increase the level of safety on the road. (Road Safety, 2010)

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), more than a million people

are killed on the world’s roads each year. A report published by the WHO in 2004

estimated that 1.2 million people were killed and 50 million injured in traffic crashes

around the world each year and that traffic crashes are the leading cause of death among

children 10-19 years of age. The report also noted that the problem was most severe in

developing countries and that simple prevention measures could halve the number of

deaths. (World Health Organization, 2010)

Because of these facts, road traffic crashes are one of the world’s largest public

health and injury prevention problems. The problem is more acute because victims are

overwhelmingly healthy prior to their crashes.

In 2009, motor vehicle traffic crashes were among the top 10 causes of death in

the United States for the first time since 1981. In 2008, vehicle traffic crashes were 11th.

(See Figure1)

In 2009, when ranked by specific ages, motor vehicle traffic crashes were the

leading cause of death for age 4 and every age 11 through 27, while motor vehicle traffic

7

crashes were the leading cause of death for each age 13 through 30 the year before.

(Subramanian, 2009)

Figure 1: Number and rank of motor vehicles traffic fatalities as a cause of death in the United States.

1981-2009 (Subramanian, 2009)

Note “The coding of mortality data changed significantly in 1999, so comparisons of the number

of deaths and death rates from 1998 and before with data from 1999 and after may not be advisable”

(Subramanian, 2009)

In the United States, three acts were announced to seek better and safer

transportation systems, starting with the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency

Act, which was signed by President Bush back in 1991.

The act provides funding to continue the provisions of the National Traffic and

Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, and the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings

Act. The act includes a number of motor vehicle safety rulemaking requirements and

additional directions, including rollover protection for occupants of passenger cars,

multipurpose passenger vehicles, and light trucks, side impact protection for occupants of

multipurpose passenger vehicles, improved head impact protection (from interior

components) for occupants of passenger cars, and airbag crash protection systems for

8

drivers and right front passengers in new passenger cars, new light trucks (including light

buses), and multipurpose passenger vehicles.

On June 9, 1998, the president signed the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st

Century (TEA-21). This act paid major attention to safety, strengthening the safety

programs across the US Department of Transportation that aim to save road users’ lives

and property. (The U.S. Department of Transportation, 1998)

The third act, The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation

Equity Act (SAFETEA) was announced formally in 2005. The act provides

comprehensive attention to the safety associated with the transportation system. The act

establishes a new core Highway Safety Improvement Program that aims to make

significant progress in reducing fatalities that take place on the highways. It concentrates

on several areas of concern in the system like work zones, children walking to school,

and older drivers. It doubled the funds to improve the infrastructure and implement

strategic highway safety planning to ensure accommodation of the safety requirements.

(The National Tranportation Library, 1991)

History of Red Light Camera Systems

Historically, traffic enforcement cameras can be dated back to 1905 where the

popular machines were used to record motorists’ speeds by taking time-stamped images

of vehicles moving across the start and end point of the road. By using the popular

machine system, authorities were able to calculate the vehicle speed and identify the

driver by referring to the time-stamps and images respectively.

Gatsometer BV was a company founded back in 1958 by rally driver Maurice

Gatsonides. It produced a monitor device to track the average speed in order to improve

9

his lap times. Later, the company started supplying police radars, red light cameras, and

mobile speed traffic cameras. (Gatsometer, 2010)

Figure 2: The Hague traffic police put a sort of monocular. (Gatsometer, 2010)

Worldwide, red light cameras have been in use since the 1960s, and were used for

traffic enforcement in Israel as early as 1969. The first red light camera system was

introduced in 1965, using tubes stretched across the road to detect the violation and

subsequently trigger the camera. Red light cameras were first developed in the

Netherlands. One of the first developers of these red light camera systems was

Gatsometer BV. (Gatsometer, 2010)

The cameras first received serious attention in the United States in the 1980s

following a highly publicized crash in 1982 involving a red-light runner who collided

with an 18-month-old girl in a stroller (or "push-chair") in New York City. Subsequently,

a community group worked with the city's Department of Transportation to research

10

automated law-enforcement systems to identify and ticket drivers who run red lights.

New York's red-light camera program went into effect in 1993. From the 1980s onward,

red light camera usage expanded worldwide, and one of the early camera system

developers, Poltech International, supplied Australia, Britain, South Africa, Taiwan, the

Netherlands and Hong Kong. American Traffic Systems (subsequently American Traffic

Solutions) (ATS) and Redflex Traffic Systems emerged as the primary suppliers of red

light camera systems in the US, while Jenoptik became the leading provider of red light

cameras worldwide. (Lowe, 2006)

Initially, all red light camera systems used film, which was delivered to local law

enforcement departments for review and approval. The first digital camera system was

introduced in Canberra, Australia in December 2000, and digital cameras have

increasingly replaced the older film cameras in other locations since then.

Figure 3: Older RLC in Ludwigsburg, Germany. (Lowe, 2006)

11

Glossary of Terms Traffic Enforcement Camera (TEC): An automated ticketing machine that could be

mounted beside or over the road to observe traffic violators. (Wilson C, 2010)

Red Light Camera (RLC): is a traffic enforcement camera that captures an image of a

vehicle which has entered an intersection against a red traffic light. By automatically

photographing vehicles that run red lights, the camera produces evidence that assists

authorities in their enforcement of traffic laws. (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety,

2010)

Red Light Runner (RLR): The simplest definition of red-light running (RLR) is the act

of entering, and proceeding through, a signalized intersection after the traffic signal has

turned red. (National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances., 2000)

Infraction : In 1981, the legislature of the US decriminalized many minor traffic offenses

to promote public safety and to facilitate the implementation of a uniform and

expeditious system for the disposition of such offenses.

Common traffic infractions are speeding as well as seat belt and liability

insurance violations. These offenses are called infractions and are considered civil cases.

(Grays Harbor County, 1981)

Violation : to break, disregard, or infringe a law or a certain agreement. (In this study: to

break a traffic law)

Citation : is another word for a traffic ticket. It is a notice issued by a law enforcement

official to a motorist or other road user, accusing violation of traffic laws. It could be

cited as a moving vehicle which includes but not limited to violations such as exceeding

12

the speed limit or running red light or non-moving violation (illegally parked vehicle).

(Grays Harbor County, 1981)

Halo Effect “spillover” : Refers to the ability of an intersection safety camera to have a

positive effect at nearby, untreated intersections because of a longer term influence on

driver behavior (For example, driver will not run red lights at intersections near

intersections equipped with a red light camera). (NHCRP, 2003)

Intrusive sensors: record vehicle count and classification data with some lane closure

and drilling into the roadway. (Federal Highway Administration’s Intelligent

Transportation Systems Joint Program Office, 2000)

Non-intrusive sensors: record vehicle count and classification data without interruption

to traffic flow. Installation of non-intrusive detection systems usually involves no

requirement for road closure or traffic management and deployment includes utilizing

existing roadside infrastructure. (Federal Highway Administration’s Intelligent

Transportation Systems Joint Program Office, 2000)

The Kangaroo effect: A kangaroo effect is created when drivers decelerate suddenly

when they notice a speed camera or red light camera, and then quickly accelerate again.

This is thought to have an adverse effect on traffic flow and the environment, as well as

road safety. (Federal Highway Administration’s Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint

Program Office, 2000)

Vehicle Detection and Surveillance Technologies

Vehicle detection and surveillance technologies can be categorized into two major

types: intrusive and non-intrusive sensors. These types of technologies go through three

main processes: the transducer, which detects the presence of a vehicle or its axles; the

13

signal-processing device, which then converts the transducer data into an electrical

signal; and, finally, a data-processing device that converts the electrical signal into traffic

parameters. There are several traffic parameters that might be included like speed,

vehicles count, occupancy, gap, weight, and many others. (Bailly, 1998)

In this section of the study, more information related to the intrusive and non-

intrusive sensors will be provided. The information will include the operating principle,

sensor measurement accuracy, costs, advantages, and disadvantages of these technologies.

Intrusive sensor (in-ground inductive loop). These types of sensors are usually

installed into the surface of the pavement by tunneling under the surface, in saw-cuts or

holes on the surface, or by anchoring directly into the surface. Intrusive sensors can be

micro-loop probes, pneumatic road tubes, or piezoelectric cables and other weight-in-

motion sensors. (Hockaday, 1991)

Figure 4: Distribution of the loop’s electromagnetic field. (Hockaday, 1991)

14

There are many advantages to the intrusive sensor like unlimited number of speed

measurements, the ability to specify the lane where the violation has occurred, and also

the level of accuracy it provides when recording the speed and the location of a vehicle.

(Kell, 1990)

Figure 5: Loop location at the intersection. (Kell, 1990)

The main disadvantages and drawbacks that are mainly associated with the

intrusive sensors are the disruption they can cause to traffic operation during the

installation processes and road closures, or when maintenance is required, whether that

type of maintenance is related to the sensor or other applications. They can also cause

damage to the surface of the road, especially when substandard drilling and cutting

activities are used when attaching the sensor to the roadway.

15

Figure 6: Loop sensors reflect damages to the asphalt. (Kell, 1990)

As far as non-intrusive sensors (loopless trigger radar), most studies show the

need for a more reliable and cost-effective method that could be applied to the same

applications as the intrusive sensor, but with fewer disadvantages. Non-intrusive sensors

came to be the solution since the installation of these sensors does not require the amount

of cutting and drilling the intrusive sensors do, and therefore cause less traffic disruption

and no damage to the surface at all. (Kell, 1990)

16

Figure 7: Speed limit cameras can take shapes of normal road elements. (Klein, Millimeter-Wave and Infrared Multisensor Design and Signal Processing, 1997)

At the same time, non-intrusive sensors (aboveground sensors) have met many of

the applications required by surface streets and freeways. The non-intrusive sensors can

be mounted above or to the side of the roadway that needs monitoring. Many

technologies are currently used for this application like laser radar, video images,

microwave radars, and passive infrared, or a combination of two or more of them. The

system is also able to record speed, vehicle’s weight, vehicle categories, and vehicle

count. (Klein, Millimeter-Wave and Infrared Multisensor Design and Signal Processing,

1997)

17

The sensor can be mounted in a position perpendicular or oblique to the traffic

flow to allow the system to monitor each lane. In comparison to the intrusive sensors,

studies show that aboveground sensors are less affected by weather change and ambient

lights, are faster and easy to install, have an accuracy of speed detection that ranges +/- 2

mph, and monitor the configuration of each lane individually. (Klein, Final Report:

Mobile Surveillance and Wireless Communication Systems Field Operational Test - Vol.

2: FOT Objectives, Organization, System Design, Results, Conclusions, and

Recommendations, 1999)

Figure 8: Intrusive sensors and camera requires less effort and no damages. (Klein, Final Report: Mobile Surveillance and Wireless Communication Systems Field Operational Test - Vol. 2: FOT Objectives, Organization, System Design, Results, Conclusions, and Recommendations, 1999)

18

Implications for Public Privacy

Practically, RLC systems work by capturing the image of the vehicle, its driver,

and the vehicle license plate number as that vehicle goes through a red light. These

photographs provide evidence to authorities in order to assist with traffic law

enforcement and, therefore, the issuing of tickets to the violator. Typically, law

enforcement officials will review the photographs and determine whether a violation has

occurred. The next step is the infraction, which will be mailed to the mailing address

registered under the license plate. In some cases, photographs are not clear and therefore

officials cannot make a final decision. As a result, officials will either dismiss the citation

or mail the violator a notice requesting identification information to assist in making their

decision. (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2010)

Using red-light camera systems is associated with several legal and privacy

concerns, including concerns about citation distribution, types of penalties, and the right

of authorities to issue a ticket based on a photograph. Before implementation, the public

should be educated on how the system works to ensure that the public understands that

the citations are only issued after photographs are reviewed by a police officer. (Elmitiny

& Radwan, 2008)

Another issue related to RLC that the public is frequently complaining about the

availability of signage and in particular, the messages that need to be given to drivers

about what is actually being monitored and enforced. A study in the UK discussed the

issues facing UK agencies responsible for implementing and operating camera-based

enforcement programs in relation to signage, as the camera signs can be located

differently depending on whether or not they are funded by a Safety Camera Partnership.

19

The study’s major finding was that signs must be used consistently across the UK - in

general, the boundaries of geo-political regions, of police force authority and of road

network operators' responsibility. (Wilson, 2007)

Impact on Revenue

The public argues that the main purpose behind RLC’s is revenue. Several studies

and researches have found much evidence towards this being the case. An article titled

“Big Brother is Ticking You”, published as part of Popular Mechanics magazine,

emphasizes on the fierce opposition to RLC by citizens and organizations such as the

American Automobile Association and National Motorists Association.

The article referred to the Washington, DC experience with RLC, as the increased

number of crashes at approaches where RLC is installed, especially rear-end ones, have

been associated with an increased number of revenue for the city. Adding to the general

and growing discontent is the fact that a few towns have been caught shortening yellow

signal timing, thereby catching more red light runners and generating more revenue but

also inadvertently increasing accident rates. (Reynolds, 2006)

Tom Brodbeck, the Sun’s City columnist, argued whether the RLC program in the

city of Winnipeg is really aimed at safety and not revenue. He reevaluated the 50 most

dangerous intersections around the city in terms of crashes and wondered why only 7 of

the 31 red light cameras throughout the city are located at those intersections. What is

more interesting is the fact that there were no cameras at all among the top 10 most

dangerous intersections. “If the main purpose of the cameras is to increase safety, then

why they are not placed in the locations with the least safety?” Tom asked.

20

In fact, in two of those top 50 locations where the cameras were installed, the rate of

crashes has risen around 20 percent. (Brodbeck, 2012)

According to a study conducted by OpEdnews.com, police unions and for-profit

camera companies have teamed up on several occasions to defeat laws that proposed to

ensure traffic cameras are designed for public safety rather than to collect revenue. For

example, in Connecticut, police unions and traffic light camera companies opposed

efforts to expand the length of yellow lights despite the fact that implementing that would

reduce red light violations by 90 percent. (Fang, 2012)

In Florida last year, American Traffic Solutions, one of the largest for-profit

camera corporations, hired 17 lobbyists to defeat a similar bill. The company circulated a

letter signed by police chiefs and worked closely with officials from the Florida Sheriff's

Association, a labor group, to pressure legislators.

In California, a bill by State Sen. Joseph Simitian to ensure that traffic cameras

can only be set up to promote public safety rather than collect revenue was opposed by

the California Police Chiefs, a law enforcement labor union group. (Tucker, 2009)

21

Study Timeline

Steps Description Timeline

1 Complete the preliminary examination

Spring

2012

2 Defining the committee members

3 Searching for dissertation topics

4 Choosing dissertation topic

5 Develop a topic

6 Begin meetings with the advisor

7 Find out requirement for proposal submission

8 Outline proposal

9 Complete the theoretical framework Summer

2012 10 Determine the methodology of chapters

11 Submit proposal to advisor and committee to review

12 Edit proposal according to the review

Fall 2012

13 File paper work and schedule defense

14 Defend proposal

15 Revise proposal if necessary

16 Meet advisor to draw up a research schedule

17 Conduct research for study

18 Analyze data from research

19 Outline dissertation

Spring

2013

20 Meet with advisor to discuss outline and preliminary data analysis

21 Update proposal chapters for dissertation

22 Write results and findings chapter

23 Write summary and conclusion chapter

24 Find out requirements for final submission

25 Find out requirements for final oral defense

26 Polish writing and meeting with editor if necessary

Fall 2013

27 Submit draft dissertation to committee

28 Edit dissertation according to the committee review

29 Submit final dissertation paperwork and schedule for oral defense

30 Have final dissertation typed professionally by word processor

31 Defend dissertation

32 Make final revision if needed

33 Graduate

22

Dissertation Structure

The dissertation has been divided into five chapters:

Chapter 1: Introduction including a statement of the problem, study objectives and main

questions, the study hypothesis, and how it contributes to the transportation engineering

industry.

Chapter 2: Background overview of the topic, traffic safety overview, history of red

light cameras, glossary of terms, vehicle detection and surveillance technologies، a brief

discussion of two of the major concerns that associated with RLC systems, implication on

public privacy and impact on revenue. The chapter ends by presenting the study timeline,

and dissertation structure.

Chapter 3: Presents the literature review, which includes a comprehensive review of the

most recent studies and articles on the subject of RLC systems. This chapter is

categorized and divided according to the most recent research topics as it starts first with

the technical part of the RLC detection types, going through studies related the

of RLC on safety (mostly before/ after comparison), RLC collision types, RLC crashes

severity, Red light runner characteristics, RLC and signal timings, RLC spillover effect,

and most recent models and procedures used to conduct RLC related studies. This chapter

also reviews the recent researches that discussed the importance of RLC site selection,

which is the focus of this dissertation.

Chapter 4: Presents the procedures, models, and the phases of the methodology chapter

that will be used for RLC sites selection. It also represents the analytical-based

methodology that will be used for RLC site selection using case studies from Colorado

23

Springs, Denver, and Fort Collins. This chapter also presents the data required for each

case study.

Chapter 5: Presents the analytical findings for all intersections within each case study

city limit and conclusions from Colorado Springs, Denver, and Fort Collins, which

eventually show the top 10 candidate intersections that have priority over other signalized

intersections for RLC installation. This chapter also includes recommendations that

support future studies on this subject.

24

CHAPTER III

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

Red light running is a significant public health concern, killing more than 800

people and injuring more than 200,000 in the United States per year. It is a significant

safety problem as drivers become more aggressive on city roads, and become impatient

waiting for traffic signals to change. RLC programs are considered one of the most

controversial topics facing traffic engineers, city councils, and public awareness groups.

Red light running cameras systems are automated enforcement systems that detect and

capture vehicles that run a red light and issue a citation. RLC systems are becoming

widely used in the United States to reduce the number and severity of red light running

crashes. (Fitzsimmons, Hallmark, McDonald, Orellana, Matulac, & Pawlovich, 2008)

In this chapter of the research, many of the recent studies and researches related to

the red light camera programs will be presented by discussing major areas of previous

researches such as the effectiveness of RLC on safety, effectiveness of RLC on type of

crashes, effectiveness of RLC on crashes severity, characteristics of red light runners,

RLC and signal timings, RLC spillover effect, and methodologies and analysis

procedures used to measure effectiveness of RLC. Finally, the literature review chapter

will finally focus on the most recent studies related to the main objective of this research,

which is the RLC sites selection.

Effectiveness of RLC on Safety

Studies evaluating the effectiveness of red light cameras on safety mostly suggest

that they are effective in reducing red light violations and injury crashes. A four-year

25

analysis (2004-2007) of the effectiveness of the RLC program in Raleigh, North Carolina,

which was a follow-up study to an earlier one made before 2004 but with a smaller

sample size (5 months), both showed that the program is producing positive safety results.

(Hummer & Cunningham, 2010)

In San Francisco, California, with its compact driving environment and dense

network of signalized intersections, red-light running reached a political crisis in 1994.

The city and county of San Francisco recently completed a pilot red-light photo-

enforcement program. The number of vehicles photographed violating red lights at the

photo-enforced locations dropped by more than 40% just 6 months into the pilot. Recent

statistics indicate that San Francisco's combined efforts to combat red-light running have

resulted in a significant decrease in the number of annual crashes caused by red-light

violators citywide. Based on the success of the pilot and supportive state legislation, San

Francisco is moving forward to expand the red-light photo-enforcement program to make

it one of the largest programs in the United States with 26 cameras rotating in 35

locations. (Fleck. J, 1999)

Iowa is another state that has a serious safety problem with red light running that

accounts for 35% of fatal and major injuries plus 21% of total crashes at signalized

intersections. The state has adopted the program in three communities; one of the

communities is Davenport that had installed the program back in 2004. Two years of

crash data after installation were available for analysis, which included 4 RLC locations

and 5 control intersections as part of it. The results of the analysis indicated that the

cameras were effective in reducing total crashes and RLR related-crashes on average of

20% and 40%, respectively. In the other hand, there was an increase of total crashes,

26

RLR related-crashes, and RLR rear-end related crashes of about 7%, 20%, and 33%,

respectively. (Hallmark, Orellana, Fitzsimmons, McDonald, & Matulac, 2010)

A comprehensive study conducted by the Center of Civic Engagement at Rice

University from September 2006 to August 2008, which included 70 monitored and non-

monitored approaches and six years of crashes data, concluded that the proportion of

crashes occurring at monitored approaches decreased significantly relative to the non-

monitored approaches, as Figure (9) shows below. The comparison of data between

monitored and non-monitored approaches supports the conclusion that red light cameras

are mitigating a general, more severe increase in collisions. Although this study supports

the idea that red light cameras have a positive effect in reducing crashes at monitored

approaches in comparison with non-monitored approaches, several questions have been

raised by these findings. The most important of these is “Why have crashes at non-

monitored approaches increased so dramatically in the past year?” The study suggested

that these results could be evidence of an increase in crashes across the city. The selection

in 2006 of intersections with high rates of crashes could be serving to magnify this effect.

(Dahnke, Stevenson, Stein, & Lomax, 2008)

27

Figure 9 The proportion of crashes occurring at monitored approaches vs. non-monitored approaches.

(Dahnke, Stevenson, Stein, & Lomax, 2008)

An additional study was conducted to estimate the safety impacts of RLCs on

traffic crashes at signalized intersections in the cities of Phoenix and Scottsdale, Arizona.

Twenty-four RLC equipped intersections in both cities were examined in detail. The

evaluation results indicated that both Phoenix and Scottsdale are operating cost-effective

installations of RLCs, which show positive safety improvement: however, the variability

in RLC effectiveness within jurisdictions is larger in Phoenix (Shin & Washington, 2007).

A paper is to evaluate the safety effectiveness of automated traffic enforcement

systems, that is, red light cameras, installed at 254 signalized intersections in 32

jurisdictions in Texas. A before-after study by the empirical Bayesian methodology was

performed to remove the regression-to-mean bias during the evaluation of treatments.

The results indicate significant decreases in the incidences of all types of red light

running (RLR) crashes and right-angle RLR crashes by 20% and 24%, respectively. A

significant increase of 37% for rear-end RLR crashes was discovered. The study results

28

suggest that a significant safety benefit for red light cameras is achieved if intersections

have four or more RLR crashes per year or have two or more RLR crashes per 10,000

vehicles. Red light cameras show counterproductive results if intersections experience

fewer than two RLR crashes per year or have one crash per 10,000 vehicles per year (Ko,

2013).

In Virginia, a study included six jurisdictions (Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax City,

Fairfax County, Falls Church, Vienna) that deployed red light cameras. It documented the

safety impacts of those cameras based on 7 years of crash data for the period January 1,

1998, through December 31, 2004. The results show that cameras were associated with a

modest reduction in comprehensive injury crashes. (Garber, Miller, Abel, Eslambolchi, &

Korukonda, 2007)

A study that evaluated the Red Light Camera (RLC) program in Fairfax County,

Virginia was conducted back in 2003 and covered 13 cameras after 2 years of operation.

In conducting the analysis, violation results were grouped into two distinct periods: 1)

initial period (1st three months) and 2) after initial period. These two distinct periods

were also grouped into five periods for each, and there were as follows: 1) initial period,

2) fourth to ninth month period, 3) 10th to 15th, 3) 16th to 21st, 4) 22nd to 27th, 5) after 27th

month. The study reported that the RLC program reduced the traffic signal violation rate

by up to 63% in the 22nd to 27th month period of its operation (see Table 1). The results

also show that the increase of the intersection amber time, combined with RLC, produced

a higher reduction of up to 72% in violation rate. The crash rate was reduced by 27%

after 2 years of RLC operation; however, this reduction was not statistically significant.

(Hobeika & Yaungyai, 2006)

29

Table 1 RLC effectiveness on safety at Fairfax County, Virginia (Hobeika & Yaungyai, 2006)

Camera Intersections

Average number of violations/ 10,000 vehicles % Change in violations per 10,000 vehilces

Initial Period

4-9 mo

10-15 mo 16-21 mo

22-27 mo

After 27

4-9 mo 10-15 mo

16-21 mo

22-27 mo After 27

1 2.86 2.7 -5.50%

2 1.59 0.59 0.26 0.44

-

62.80% -83.60% -72.60%

3

4 2.33 1.19 0.88 0.97 1.03 1.2

-

49.10% -62.40% -58.30% -56.10% -48.70%

5 8.68 6.73 2.67 2.09 2.67 2.03

-

22.50% -69.30% -75.90% -69.20% -76.60%

6 2.13 2.34 2.56 2.01 10.10% 20.50% -5.70%

7

8 2.15 2.21 2.29 1.25 2.70% 6.50% -41.80%

9 2.44 2.26 2.78 2 -7.20% 14.00% -18.10%

10 2.21 2.15 1.83 -2.40% -17.20%

Average 3.05 2.56 1.9 1.46 1.85 1.615

-

17.09% -27.36% -45.40% -62.65% -62.65%

30

A very interesting pilot study was conducted in Maine, which is considered as one

of the states that have a major problem with red light running. Maine is one of the states

that does not allow issuing citations based on photographic evidence, so only warning

letters were issued to violators. Therefore, the study covering the period from September

2004 to August 2005 was mainly concerned with the reduction of red light running

violations as a result of warning letters only. Observations of red-light running indicate

that the violation rate dropped by around 28% between December 2004 (when the system

was first installed) and May 2005 (when the system had been operational for several

months). However, it was the infractions that occurred at low speeds and within the first

second or so that were reduced. Infractions more than 3 seconds into red and at speeds

above 35 mph actually increased. It was interpreted that these later infractions were not

caused by the enforcement, but rather by other factors like weather and roadway

conditions. Conflict and crash data indicate that there were no great improvements in

safety between the before period and the period when the system was in operation. Actual

fines and RLC systems rather than warning tickets may have produced greater safety

effects. (Garder, 2006)

Another study was mainly aimed at estimating the RLR problem in Indiana. The

other objectives of the research included: (1) learning drivers' opinions on the problem,

(2) studying the effectiveness of selected countermeasures, (3) studying the legal issues

related to photo-enforcement. A crash statistics study, telephone survey, and extended

monitoring of a selected intersection were the three major investigations chosen to

estimate the magnitude of the problem. The crash statistics for the 1997-1999 period

showed that 22% of signalized intersection crashes in Indiana resulted from RLR. RLR

31

preceded 50% of fatal crashes at these intersections. The telephone survey showed that

67% of Indiana drivers felt that RLR was a problem in the state, and 12% of them

claimed to have been involved in a RLR crash. The extended monitoring of the through

movements at the study intersection also recorded a considerable violation rate. Traffic at

a selected intersection in West Lafayette, Indiana, was videotaped and the video material

was used to detect the red light violations. The expected number of drivers arriving at the

start of the red signal has been proposed as a true measure of exposure to RLR. The

authors call it an opportunity for RLR. This exposure was used to estimate the RLR rate.

The statistical significance of the difference in the RLR rates between different periods

was estimated using binomial distribution. Photo-enforcement reduced the violation rate

by 62% during the week of enforcement and by 35% during the week immediately

following the start of enforcement. (Tarko & Reddy, 2003)

As a conclusion of this section of the chapter, it seems clear that most studies

agreed on a certain level of improvement associated with the installation and operation of

RLC programs. Studies were made using different methodologies, time periods, data,

and locations; however, they all concluded that there were positive implications of RLC.

Table 2 briefly presents all of these studies and their findings.

32

Table 2 Summary of the recent studies of RLC effectiveness on safety

Study Title Location Time Period/ Data Type

Findings

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Red-Light Running Camera

Enforcement in Raleigh, North Carolina (Hummer & Cunningham, 2010)

Raleigh, North Carolina

4 years (2004-2007)

Positive safety results. (Significant in 2 groups)

Analysis of the RLC effectiveness on reducing red

light violations and injury crashes.

5 groups data sets

Can we make red light runners stop? Red light photo

enforcement in San Francisco, California (Fleck. J, 1999)

San Francisco. California 1994

Vehicles violating RLC decreased by 40%

a pilot red-light photo-enforcement program analysis

+ Intention for future expansion of the program

Red Light Running in Iowa: Automated Enforcement Program Evaluation with

Bayesian Analysis (Hallmark, Orellana, Fitzsimmons,

McDonald, & Matulac, 2010)

Davenport. Iowa

2004 RLC us effective in reducing total crashes and RLR crashes Two years of after installation

data including control intersections

Evaluation of the City of Houston digital automated red light camera program (Dahnke,

Stevenson, Stein, & Lomax, 2008)

The Center of Civic Engagement at Rice

University 2001-2006 of crashes data

included 70 of monitored and non-monitored approaches

Monitored approaches crashes decreased significantly

relative to the non-monitored approaches

Houston. Texas

The impact of red light cameras on safety in Arizona (Shin &

Washington, 2007)

Phoenix and Scottsdale, Arizona

2000-2005 of before data crashes

Positive safety improvement + more effectiveness results

in Phoenix. The Impact of Red Light

Cameras (Photo-Red Enforcement) on Crashes in

Virginia (Garber, Miller, Abel, Eslambolchi, & Korukonda,

2007)

Six jurisdictions in Virginia (Alexandria,

Arlington, Fairfax City, Fairfax County, Falls

Church, Vienna)

1998-2004 of crashes data Modest reduction on

comprehensive injury crashes

Traffic Conflict Studies Before and After Introduction of Red-

Light Running Photo Enforcement in Maine (Garder,

2006)

Maine

September 2004 to August 2005

28% decrease of low speeds and within the first second Infractions + increase of infractions at more than 3 seconds into red and at speeds above 35 mph.

The reduction of red light running violations as a result of

warning letters only.

Evaluation of safety enforcement on changing driver behavior

(Tarko & Reddy, 2003) West Lafayette, Indiana

Crash statistics for the 1997-1999 period

The photo-enforcement reduced the violation rate by

62% during the week of enforcement and by 35%

during the week immediately following.

33

Effectiveness of RLC on Type of Crashes

When reviewing studies concerned about the type of crashes at signalized

intersections, it looks obvious that the crash type that is targeted in the analyses is the

right-angle (T-bone) crashes, which involve a violating vehicle colliding with another

vehicle crossing the intersection legally on a green signal display. Another crash type

likely to be investigated is a vehicle turning left colliding with a vehicle moving through

the intersection from the opposite approach direction. For this later scenario, the turning

vehicle could be violating the red when the opposite direction has a green, or vice-versa.

On the other hand, there is a concern that rear-end crashes of vehicles approaching the

intersection will increase with RLC enforcement. Knowing that there is a camera system,

and on seeing the yellow display, a more cautious motorist may stop more abruptly,

causing the following motorist, not anticipating the need to stop and likely to be

following too closely, to hit the lead vehicle from behind. Assuming that these crash

types produce equal crash severity, then a net benefit would accrue if the crash reductions

of the angle type exceeded any crash increases of the rear-end type. In general, angle

crashes are usually more severe and, therefore, even a zero change in total crashes may

prove to be safer, if there is a smaller proportion of angle to rear-end crashes with the use

of cameras.

Red-light camera enforcement offers potential as a cost-effective, powerful tool in

reducing red-light running and associated crashes. However, studies on the effectiveness

of the red-light camera system have shown mixed results in terms the of types of crashes

associated with the system, with some studies showing a reduction in T-bone red-light

related crashes, while others report no significant improvement. Furthermore, most

34

studies have shown that red-light camera systems increased rear-end crashes. (Elmitiny &

Radwan, 2008)

As with all synthesis documents, a comprehensive report published by the

National Cooperative Highway Research Program was performed that relied exclusively

on available information; no new data collection or analysis. The information came from

published literature, various websites, and from a questionnaire sent to more than 50

jurisdictions nationwide and some foreign countries known or believed to have installed

red light running camera systems. The findings that can be drawn from the information

complied by that study are as follows. There is a preponderance of evidence, albeit

inconclusive, indicating that red light running camera systems improve the overall safety

of intersections where they are used. As expected, angle crashes are usually reduced and,

in some situations, rear-end crashes increase, but to a lesser extent. (The National

Cooperative Highway Research Program, 2003)

As an example, before-after crash results for Sacramento California are shown on

Table (3) below. (McGee & Eccles, 2006)

Table 3 Results of one-year before/after study Sacramento California (McGee & Eccles, 2006)

Crashes No. of Crashes 12 Months

Before Installation

No. of Crashes 12 Months

After Installation

Change (%)

Total number of crashes 81 73 -10

Injury crashes 60 44 -27

Right-angle crashes 42 31 -26

Rear-end crashes 32 28 -12

Red light crashes 28 17 -39

35

The effectiveness of a group of red light camera installations in Sydney in

reducing right angle and right- (left) turn opposed crashes was analyzed using crash data

from 2 years before and 2 years after the cameras were installed (See Table 4). The study,

published in 1993, had 6 cameras circulating in 16 intersections with cameras and

covered another 16 intersections as control (the control sites were matched on the basis of

crash history, traffic volume, and intersection configuration). The camera (treatment) and

control sites were grouped as follows: Eight most-used camera sites, eight least-used

camera sites, eight most-used control sites, and eight least-used control sites. The study

concluded that red light cameras reduce target crashes and increase rear end crashes with

an overall reduction in accident numbers and severity that was similar to other

engineering countermeasures. (Hillier, Ronczka, & Schnerring, 1993)

Table 4 Before and after changes in crashes, Sydney, Australia (Hillier, Ronczka, & Schnerring, 1993)

Intersection Group (%) Change in Target

Crashes

(%) Change in Rear-End

Crashes

(%) Change in Overall

Casualty Crashes

Most-used camera sites -48 +62 -28

Least-used camera sites -49 +27 -33

Most-used control sites +2 -29 +17

Least-used control sites

“other countermeasures”

-52 -18 -39

According to one of the most comprehensive studies to date on RLCs, a report

from FHWA titled as Safety Evaluation of Red-Light Cameras, which included data from

seven jurisdictions (Baltimore, MD; Charlotte, NC; El Cajon, CA; Howard County and

Montgomery County, MD; and San Diego; and San Francisco, CA) and 132 intersections,

36

concluded that the use of RLCs led to the following: 25 percent decrease in total right-

angle crashes, 16 percent reduction in injury right-angle crashes, 15 percent increase in

total rear-end crashes, and 24 percent increase in injury rear-end crashes. As Table (5)

below shows, the direction of these effects was remarkably consistent across jurisdictions.

The analysis indicated a modest spillover effect on right-angle crashes; however, this was

not mirrored by the increase in rear end crashes seen in the treatment group, which

detracts somewhat from the credibility of this result as evidence of a general deterrence

effect. (Administration, 2005)

Table 5 Results for individual jurisdictions for total crashes (Administration, 2005)

Jurisdiction Number (%) Change in Right Angle

Crashes (Standard Error)

(%) Change in Rear End Crashes

(Standard Error)

1 -40.0 (5.4) 21.3 (17.1)

2 0.8 (9.0) 8.5 (9.8)

3 -14.3 (12.5) 15.1 (14.1)

4 -24.7 (8.7) 19.7 (11.7)

5 -34.3 (7.6) 38.1 (14.5)

6 -26.1 (4.7) 12.7 (3.4)

7 -24.4 (11.2) 7.0 (18.5)

The standard error is the standard deviation of the sampling distribution of a statistic. The term may also be used to refer to an

estimate of that standard deviation, derived from a particular sample used to compute the estimate. (Everitt, 2003)

Consistent with findings in other regions, the study that was conducted in Arizona

has concluded that angle and left-turn crashes are reduced in general, while rear-end

crashes tend to increase as a result of RLCs. In Scottsdale, for instance, the crash trends

suggest that an effort to reduce angle crashes through the use of RLCs may be

37

worthwhile, since angle crashes are generally more severe than rear-end crashes (See

Figure 10 below). (Shin & Washington, 2007)

Figure 10 Percentage of crash type in Scottsdale for 14-year period. (Shin & Washington, 2007)

The Virginia study (presented earlier as part of RLC effectiveness on safety

section) that includes six different jurisdictions found that cameras are associated with an

increase in rear-end crashes (about 27% or 42% depending on the statistical method used)

and a decrease in red light running crashes (about 8% or 42% depending on the statistical

method used). It also shows that there is significant variation by intersection and by

jurisdiction: one jurisdiction (Arlington) suggests that cameras are associated with an

increase in all six crash types that were explicitly studied (rear-end, angle, red light

running, injury red light running, total injury, and total) whereas two other jurisdictions

saw decreases in most of these crash types. (Garber, Miller, Abel, Eslambolchi, &

Korukonda, 2007)

38

Effectiveness of RLC on Crashes Severity

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, during the period from

1992 to 1998, almost 6,000 people (approximately 850 per year) died in RLR crashes in

the Unites States, and another 1.4 million (approximately 200,000 per year) were injured

in crashes that involved red light running.

Using 1997 data from the General Estimates System and a narrower definition of

RLR crashes, Smith. et. al, estimated that approximately 97,000 crashes, resulting in 961

fatalities, could be attributed to red light running in the United States per year during this

same period. Table 6 shows the distribution of crashes by severity for all signalized

intersections, those involving angle crashes, and those considered to be the result of red

light running. As seen, slightly more than 44% of the fatalities at signalized intersections

were attributed to red light running. (McGee & Eccles, 2006)

Table 6 The distribution of crashes by severity for all signalized intersections 1997 (McGee & Eccles,

2006)

Crashes Measure Signalized Intersections Angle Crashes at

Signalized Intersections

Red Light Running

Fatal crashes 2,176 1,587 961 (44%)

Injury crashes 318,000 261,000 51,000 (16%)

PDO crashes 469,000 361,000 45,000 (9.5%)

Total crashes 789,000 623,000 97,000 (12%)

Fatalities 2,344 1,729 1,059(45%)

Injuries 543,000 464,000 91,000(16%)

Note: Percentage is calculated out of total crashes at signalized intersections.

A study was done to evaluate the crash effects of 87 signed fixed digital speed

and red light cameras and accompanying warning signs placed at 77 signalized

intersections across Victoria, Australia. Across the 77 intersections where the cameras

39

evaluated were installed, it was estimated that 17 serious or fatal crashes per year and 36

minor injury crashes would be prevented, representing crash cost savings to the

community of over $8 million per year. Based on the outcomes of the evaluation,

continued and expanded use of combined fixed red-light and speed cameras in Victoria is

expected to improve driver safety, save lives and reduce crash related costs. Analysis

results estimated large decreases in casualty crashes associated with the FDSRL cameras

and their associated signage. When only the crashes involving vehicles travelling from

the approach intersection leg where the camera was placed are considered, the estimated

casualty crash reduction was 47%. When crashes involving vehicles from all approaches

are compared, the estimated casualty crash reduction was 26%. A 44% reduction in right

angle and right turn against crashes, those particularly targeted by red light enforcement,

was also estimated. While use of the FDSRL cameras was associated with a reduction in

overall casualty crash risk, there was no evidence for a reduction in relative crash severity

meaning the cameras were associated equally with reductions in minor injury crashes as

serious injury and fatal crashes. (Budd, Scully, & Newstead, 2011)

An article examines the effectiveness of red-light cameras at reducing the rate of

violations as well as the level and severity of intersection-related crashes. Although the

evaluations differ in sample size, type of intersection and evaluation methods, several

trends emerge. The findings suggest that if installed at locations with significant red-light

running crashes and/or violations, red-light cameras substantially reduce red-light

violation rates and reduce crashes that result from red-light running. Although they may

not reduce total crashes, they usually are effective at reducing crash severity. The author

40

finally suggested that red-light cameras enforcement should not be seen as a substitute for

proper traffic engineering of signalized intersections. (Bochner & Walden, 2010)

A study developed a Bayesian HBL (hierarchical binomial logistic) model to

identify the risk factors on individual severity of driver injury and vehicle damage at

urban intersections of Singapore. For the study to conclude significant findings, it was

helpful to account for the severity correlation of driver–vehicle units involved in the same

multi-vehicle crashes. The study included various geometric features, traffic conditions,

and driver–vehicle characteristics, as well as nine variables identified as significant using

95% BCI (Bayesian credible interval). Among these, the crash-level significant factors

are Time of Day, Intersection Type, Nature of Lane, Street Lighting, Presence of Red

Light Camera, and Pedestrian Involved. In particular, it was found that crashes occurring

in peak time, in good street-lighting condition, and in the case of pedestrians involved are

associated with lower severity, while those occurring in night time, at T/Y type

intersections, on right-most lane, and in the presence of red light cameras have larger

odds of being severe. Vehicle type, Driver Age and Involvement of Offending Party were

also found to affect severities of driver injury and vehicle damage significantly.

Specifically, results indicated that heavy vehicles have a better resistance to serious

injury or extensive damage, while two-wheel vehicles, young or aged drivers, with the

involvement of offending party have a higher risk of being high severity. (Helai, Chor, &

Haque, 2008)

The study that included Phoenix and Scottsdale (Arizona) also investigated the

severity of crashes occurred at RLC intersections. It concluded that injury and fatal

crashes of approximately 16.95 per year occurred at RLC intersections of Phoenix,

41

compared to 10.43 per year in Scottsdale. Additionally, the number of rear-end crashes

resulting in injuries or fatalities (5.67/year) is higher than that of angle crashes

(2.41/year), as was found previously. Further examinations however, again show that

angle crashes are more serious than rear-end crashes.

Figures (11) and (12) below show the proportion of crashes by severity. The

percentage of PDO crashes and minor crashes for rear-end crashes is higher than the

percentage of injury/fatal crashes. (Shin & Washington, 2007)

Figure 11 Percentage of crashes per year by crash type and severity (PDO vs. injury and fatal). (Shin &

Washington, 2007)

42

Figure 12 Percentage of crashes per year by crash type and severity (minor vs. major). (Shin &

Washington, 2007)

A study shows the attitude of people toward red light cameras in 14 cities with red light

camera programs concluded that two thirds favor the use of cameras for red light

enforcement and 42 percent strongly favor it. The chief reasons for opposing cameras

were the perceptions that cameras make mistakes and that the motivation for installing

them is revenue, not safety. Forty-one percent of drivers favor using cameras to enforce

right-turn-on-red violations. Nearly 9 in 10 drivers were aware of the camera

enforcement programs in their cities, and 59 percent of these drivers believed that the

cameras have made intersections safer. Almost half know someone who received a red

light camera citation, and 17 percent had received at least one ticket themselves. When

compared with drivers in the 14 cities with camera programs, the percentage of drivers in

Houston who strongly favored enforcement was about the same (45%), but strong

43

opposition was higher in Houston than in the other cities (28 versus 18%) (Mccartt,

2012).

Characteristics of Red Light Runners

Knowing the characteristics of the red light runners has been another point of

interest to many researchers. It is another way to mitigate this serious problem that is

considered among the most risky behaviors in the transportation system by defining the

characteristics of those drivers who run red lights more frequently comparing to others.

A study was conducted in Southeast Virginia that includes eight intersections and

covers an 8-month period during which photo enforcement cameras were installed at

three sites (A1, A2, and A3). As Table (7) shows, data collectors observed 1765 light

cycles. Overall, 18.8% of last drivers entered intersections on green lights, 68.4% on

yellow, and 12.7% on red. Demographics were recorded for 1433 drivers (only the

yellow and red light runners). Demographics of red light runners across the five data

collection periods are provided in table 7. The numbers represent the percent of red light

runners out of all yellow and red light runners during that observation period broken

down by subcategories for each demographic variable. Overall, men had higher raw red

light running rates than women; however, the only significant difference between men

and women occurred in Phase 1. Red light running rates for both men and women

declined from baseline levels and reached their lowest levels during Phase 4. The only

significant difference in red light running as a function of ethnic group classification was

during Phase 2 when non-whites were more likely to run red lights than whites. Note that

numbers in parentheses are the sample sizes for categories each phase of the project. The

44

percent represents those who ran the red light as opposed to the yellow light. (Martinez &

Porter, 2006). The phases (collection periods) are:

Phases 1 and 2: These observations took place in June and July 2004, respectively,

before any cameras were installed and served as baseline measures of red light running

behavior.

Phase 3: In September 2004, observations occurred again. Intersection A1

received cameras and was in the 30-day warning period (i.e., when warning letters were

mailed to the registered owners of vehicles that ran the red light).

Phase 4: This observation took place in November 2004. Intersection A1 was in

the actual citation phase, A2 was in the warning phase, and cameras at A3 were being

tested to go operational the day after it was was observed. (Note that this observation

phase took place in November when it would get dark about 5 p.m. and that the camera

flash allowed for no mistake that it was functional.)

Phase 5: The fifth observation phase occurred in January 2005 when A1, A2, and

A3 were issuing citations.

Table 7 Percent of last drivers running a red light by demographic category. (Martinez & Porter, 2006)

Demographics Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5

Gender

Female 13.0

(108)

16.7 (96) 17.0 (88) 8.0 (50) 10.1 (69)

Male 25.6 (207) 18.5 (162) 19.5 (128) 10.8 (93) 14.4 (111)

Race

White 20.3 (177) 14.1 (149) 17.0 (147) 11.0 (100) 15.4 (123)

45

Demographics Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5

Non-White 24.3 (103) 21.5 (93) 18.1 (83) 9.8 (41) 10.4 (47)

Safety Belt Use

Yes 20.4 (113) 10.5 (114) 12.4 (113) 4.3 (70) 15.7 (102)

No 27.3 (77) 22.6 (62) 23.4 (77) 13.9 (36) 10.4 (48)

Age Group

25 or younger 24.5 (102) 23.1(65) 22.2 (54) 11.1 (36) 15.9 (44)

26-35 19.0 (84) 16.8 (107) 26.8 (71) 6.4 (47) 12.9 (62)

36 and older 19.7 (76) 11.3 (62) 9.0 (78) 10.9 (46) 16.0 (50)

Number of People in

vehicle

1 17.3 (260) 18.5 (211) 20.4 (201) 7.9 (126) 11.4 (158)

2 or more 32.4 (68) 14.3 (63) 13.6 (59) 15.6 (32) 19.5 (41)

Note: The word phase refers to project phases

Another report conducted by the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

presents results from an analysis of about 47,000 red light violation records collected

from 11 RLC equipped intersections in the City of Sacramento, California, between May

1999 and June 2003. The report used seven different variables to study the

characteristics of red light runners, these variables are:

� Age of the violator

� Gender of the violator

� Time (in hours) when the violation occurred

� Model Year of the vehicle driven by the violator

� Measured vehicle speed at the time of the violation

� Elapsed time from the onset of red signal until the time of the violation

� The distribution of repeat red light offenders

The report suggests that younger drivers under 30 years of age are

lights than drivers in other age groups (See Figure 13)

violators that is shown in the figure is categorized by 7 age groups and

the number of licensed drivers (LDs) in California, the total million

traveled (MVMT) and relative ratios of red light

driver percentages and total MVMT percentages

were plotted and presented in Figure

that about 56 percent of the violators

(See Figure 14). Moreover, 94 percent of the violations occurred within 2 seconds after

the onset of red light, and only 3 percent of the violations were recorded 5 seconds after

the onset of red light. App

Measured vehicle speed at the time of the violation

e from the onset of red signal until the time of the violation

The distribution of repeat red light offenders

The report suggests that younger drivers under 30 years of age are more likely to run red

lights than drivers in other age groups (See Figure 13) (Note: Distribution of red light

that is shown in the figure is categorized by 7 age groups and included

the number of licensed drivers (LDs) in California, the total million vehicle miles

and relative ratios of red light violation (RLV) percentages by licensed

ages and total MVMT percentages). Relative ratios for

were plotted and presented in Figure 13. Additionally, the report indicates

that about 56 percent of the violators were traveling at or below the posted speed limit

. Moreover, 94 percent of the violations occurred within 2 seconds after

the onset of red light, and only 3 percent of the violations were recorded 5 seconds after

the onset of red light. Approximately 4 percent of the violators were repeat offenders.

46

e from the onset of red signal until the time of the violation

more likely to run red

(Note: Distribution of red light

included data on

vehicle miles

violation (RLV) percentages by licensed

and

Additionally, the report indicates

were traveling at or below the posted speed limit

. Moreover, 94 percent of the violations occurred within 2 seconds after

the onset of red light, and only 3 percent of the violations were recorded 5 seconds after

roximately 4 percent of the violators were repeat offenders.

47

Figure 13 Normalized red light violation values by age group (Yang & Najm, 2006)

Figure 14 Distributions of red light violation records by vehicle speed (Yang & Najm, 2006)

Figure 15 illustrates the distribution of Sacramento’s red light violations by

violation time (in hours). The overall trend shown in this figure is consistent with the

48

expectation – most of red light violations occurred during the daytime hours when most

urban driving is done (i.e., 7 AM to 7 PM). However, the highest count of red light

violations during the time period from 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM is somewhat surprising.

Finally, red light violations rates are estimated between 6 and 29 violations per 100,000

intersection-crossing vehicles. (Yang & Najm, 2006)

Figure 15 Distribution of red light violation by time of day (Yang & Najm, 2006)

A study introduced by the National Highway Council concluded that 96 percent

of drivers in a recent survey fear they will get hit by another vehicle running a red light

when they enter an intersection. Some 800 licensed drivers aged 18-65 were polled. Two-

thirds of the respondents see other drivers run red lights every day, with 54% speculating

that the culprits were in a hurry. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49

counted 1,114 traffic deaths in 1997 in intersections where drivers failed to heed red-light

signals. (Karr, 1999)

RLC and Signal Timings

Two principal methods used to reduce red light running involve lengthening the

duration of yellow change intervals and automated red light enforcement. These two

types of countermeasures were usually supported by studies from different points of view

that tried to conclude which of them is more efficient.

A study evaluated the incremental effects on red light running of first lengthening

yellow signal timing, followed by the introduction of red light cameras. At six

approaches to two intersections in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, yellow change intervals

were increased by about 1s, followed several months later by red light camera

enforcement. The number of red light violations was monitored before changes were

implemented, several weeks after yellow timing changes were made, and about 1 year

after commencement of red light camera enforcement. Similar observations were

conducted at three comparison intersections in a neighboring state where red light

cameras were not used and yellow timing remained constant. Results showed that yellow

timing changes reduced red light violations by 36%. The addition of red light camera

enforcement further reduced red light violations by 96% beyond levels achieved by the

longer yellow timing. As a conclusion, the study shows that the provision of adequate

yellow signal timing reduces red light running, but longer yellow timing alone does not

eliminate the need for better enforcement, which can be provided effectively by red light

cameras. (Retting & Williams, 1996)

50

The City Council for the City of Springfield, Missouri, approved a contract to

install up to sixteen cameras for automated red light enforcement in the spring of 2006.

During the implementation phase of the program, test sampling of potential intersections

for placement of the cameras revealed significant differences in yellow timings and red

light running at city signals compared to Missouri DOT signals inside the city. This

difference prompted city and state traffic engineers to review their respective methods of

calculating the yellow and all-red timings. Despite using the same equation recommended

by ITE, the agencies used different assumptions for perception-reaction time and how to

interpret and use the results. City and state traffic engineers came to agreement and

documented the assumptions to be used in a Memo of Understanding (MOU) to bring

consistency to the yellow and all-red timings throughout the city. The result was that

yellow time at all city signals was increased and yellow time at nearly all state signals

was decreased. All signals were retimed in conformance with the MOU in the spring of

2008 and in conformance to ITE recommended practice, three months prior to the first

red light camera startup and 18 months prior to the installation of a camera on an

intersection where the yellow time had been reduced. The result of the signal retiming

has brought credibility to the red light camera program for the public and media with a

reduction in rear-end crashes in addition to a reduction in total crashes at traffic signals.

(Newman, 2010)

Methodologies and Procedures Used for RLC Analysis

Several types of methodologies and analysis procedures were used such as the

Binary model, which was preliminarily developed to examine how the stopping–crossing

51

decision of drivers at the onset of amber is affected by geometric, traffic, and situational

variables.

Results showed that the presence of RLCs is one of the five significant factors

affecting a driver’s decision to cross at the onset of amber. A Multinomial logic model

further confirmed that RLCs are effective in reducing RLR frequency. Further analysis

on the fitted models revealed that while the presence of RLCs is effective in reducing risk

of right-angle crashes, it has a mixed effect on the risk of rear-end crashes. Whether the

RLC reduces or increases the possibility of rear-end crashes depends on the speed of the

trailing vehicle and the headway between vehicles. (Helai, Chor, & Haque, 2008)

Figure 16 A photo taken from a camera for an accident involving RLR (Administration, 2005)

Another study conducted by the Federal Highway Administration used the

Empirical bays for before and after crashes data from 132 treatment sites. Crash effects

detected were consistent in direction with those found in many previous studies:

52

decreased right-angle crashes and increased rear end ones. The economic analysis

examined the extent to which the increase in rear end crashes negates the benefits for

decreased right-angle crashes. There was indeed a modest aggregate crash cost benefit of

RLC systems. The study concluded that economic benefits (see Table 8) could go to its

highest level during the occurrence of the highest total entering average annual daily

traffic, the largest ratios of right-angle to rear end crashes, and the presence of protected

left-turn phases.

Note that FHA used samples (K+B+C+A) to refer to different crash cost levels. A

refers to cost estimate of fatal and serious crash levels, K for injury estimate of right

angle crashes, and B- and C- level refer to injury estimate of rear end and left turn crashes.

(Federal Highway Administration, 2005)

Table 8 Unit crash cost estimates by severity level used in the economic effects analysis. (Federal

Highway Administration, 2005)

Crash severity level Right-angle crash cost Rear end crash cost

O (Standard deviation) $ 8673 (1285) $11463 (3338)

K+A+B+C (Standard deviation) $64468 (11919) $53659 (9276)

Note: In this study, (K+A+B+C) are all combined to refer to injury level crashes due to inconsistent sample

size while O refers to non-injury level crashes. (Administration, 2005)

A meta-analysis was used to determine the effects of red-light cameras (RLCs) on

intersection crashes. The study shows that the size and direction of results reported from

studies included in the meta-analysis are strongly affected by study methodology. The

studies that have controlled for most confounding factors yield the least favorable results.

Based on these studies, installation of RLCs leads to an overall increase in the number of

53

crashes by about 15%. Rear-end crashes increase by about 40% and right angle crashes,

which are the target crashes for RLC, are reduced by about 10%. All effects are, however,

non-significant. Meta-regression analysis shows that results are more favorable when

there is a lack of control for regression to the mean (RTM). (Erke, 2009)

RLC Spillover Effect (Halo Effect)

There is some but not much evidence that RLR cameras will not only deter

motorists from violating a signal at intersections equipped with cameras, but will also

modify driver behavior at other intersections. If cameras do have an effect on driver

behavior beyond those intersections where the cameras are used, then the other

intersections in the area will likely also experience a decrease in angle crashes. This is a

spillover effect or a halo effect.

A study of an RLR camera program in Oxnard, California, found a decrease in

crashes at intersections with cameras and intersections without cameras. The study’s

authors attributed this reduction to spillover. (Retting R. A., 2002). On the other hand, an

evaluation of cameras in Sydney, Australia, did not find a significant reduction in RLR-

related crashes at intersections without cameras. The authors concluded that spillover did

not occur at non-camera intersections used as control group intersections. (IMBERGER,

2003)

A national study involving multiple jurisdictions has yet to prove that this red

light camera spillover effect does or does not occur. Consequently, the studies suggested

that agencies should consider the possibility of this spillover in their evaluation of RLR

cameras and modify their methodology or conclusions accordingly. Also, agencies

54

(according to the author) may want to evaluate and quantify the spillover effect in

addition to the effect at intersections equipped with cameras. (McGee & Eccles, 2006)

The effectiveness of red light running cameras in reducing the number of drivers

who run the red light in Clive, Iowa was evaluated. The number of red light running

violations at camera-enforced intersection approaches were compared to violations at

approaches at intersections where cameras were not used within the same metropolitan

area using a cross-sectional analysis. A Poisson lognormal regression was used to

evaluate the effectiveness of the cameras in reducing violations. Results indicated that red

light running cameras substantially reduced the number of violations at camera-enforced

approaches as compared to control approaches. (Fitzsimmons, Hallmark, Orellana,

McDonald, & Matulac, 2009)

In June 2010, Arlington County, Virginia, installed red light cameras at four

heavily traveled signalized intersections. A study examined the effects of the camera

enforcement on red light violations. Traffic was videotaped during the one month

warning period and both one month and one year after ticketing began at 12 signalized

intersections, including the four camera intersections, four “spillover” intersections

without cameras in Arlington County (two on the same travel corridors as the camera

intersections and two on different travel corridors), and four “control” intersections

without cameras in adjacent Fairfax County. Rates of red light violations per 10,000

vehicles were computed.

55

Figure 17 Intersections studied in Arlington Virginia (McCartt & Hu, 2013)

Consistent with prior research, there were significant reductions in red light

violations at camera-enforced intersections. These reductions were greater the more time

that passed since the light turned red, when violations are more likely to result in crashes.

Spillover benefits were observed only for nearby intersections on the same travel

corridor, and these were not always statistically significant. At intersections on other

travel corridors, red light running increased compared with expected rates based on the

control intersections. (See Table 9)

The study concluded that this evaluation examined the first year of Arlington

County’s red light camera program only, which was modest in scope and without

ongoing publicity. A larger, more widely publicized program likely is needed to achieve

community-wide effects. (McCartt & Hu, 2013)

56

Table 9 Observed red light violation rates per 10,000 vehicles by time into red signal phase and percentage changes 1 month and 1 year after red light

camera ticketing began, compared with warning period. (McCartt & Hu, 2013)

Violation rates per 10,000 vehicles by time (seconds) into

red

Percent change in violation rates

compared with warning period

Warning Period

1 Month after

ticketing

1 Year after

ticketing

1 Month after

ticketing

1 Year after

ticketing

≥0.5

Sec

≥1

Sec

≥1.5

Sec

≥0.5

Sec

≥1

Sec

≥1.5

Sec

≥0.5

Sec

≥1

Sec

≥1.5

Sec

≥0.5

Sec

≥1

Sec

≥1.5

Sec

≥0.5

Sec

≥1

Sec

≥1.5

Sec

Arlington County

Camera intersections 11.7 5.8 3 11.6 4.7 1.6 8.9 4.1 1.5 -1 -20 -47 -24 -30 -50

Corridor spillover

intersections 19.3 10.3 4.7 12.6 6.7 3.2 20.1 10.2 6.1 -35 -35 -31 4 -1 30

Non-corridor

spillover

intersections 1.7 0.4 0.4 4.3 2 1.3 4.8 2.9 1.6 159 434 240 184 688 343

Fairfax County

control intersections 6.9 2.8 0.5 8.6 2.8 1.5 8.9 4 1.8 25 -2 228 30 44 283

57

RLC Site Selections Although there are many studies that have investigated the safety improvement of

the RLC system, there are relatively very few studies that have covered the RLC sites

selection and where/ when to implement them especially when considering the cost

associated with the system.

A general study provides a tool for identifying and priority-ranking problem

intersections with respect to red light running within the entire roadway network under

the jurisdiction of a particular agency. The tool includes three steps as a guide to

estimate the safety changes upon installation of a red light camera at a signalized

intersection. These three steps are: empirical Bayes method, collision prediction models,

and collision modification factors (the assumption of negative binomial error distribution

was used for developing the last step). (Hadayeghi, Malone, Suggett, & Reid, 2007)

The city of Durham wished to explore the feasibility of implementing a red light

camera program. Particularly, they wanted to ensure that the sites were selected in an

objective and defensible manner based on sound traffic engineering judgment. The study

concluded that RLC sites selection criteria could be based on two main elements: the

overrepresentation of angle crashes and the higher than expected number of crashes.

Additionally, the study used a more detailed field investigation to observe things like the

signal timings, intersection layout, traffic signal type and placement, prevailing traffic

patterns and operating speeds, and the suitability of each approach for a red light camera.

Based on the review, a short list of candidate sites/approaches was developed. For

approaches remaining on the short list, it was suggested that the occurrence of red light

running be confirmed through a detailed violation records, and rear end crashes be

58

closely monitored in the post-implementation period. (Suggett, Malone, & Borchuk,

2005)

The Intersection Safety Camera Program (ISCP) in British Columbia, Canada, has

proved effective in reducing the frequency of crashes at locations where red light cameras

have been deployed. Post-implementation evaluations of ISCP conducted by the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia detected a 14% reduction in crashes resulting

in injuries 18 months after the program was implemented. A follow-up study conducted

36 months after ISCP implementation examined the safety performance of ISCP and

found that the rate of crashes resulting in injuries was reduced by 6.4%. Given the

ongoing and long-term success of ISCP at reducing crashes, it was decided that the

program should be expanded. To support ISCP expansion, it was necessary to examine

how the program had been implemented and to learn from the results of the previous

program evaluations. A critical element of ISCP is the selection of sites to be targeted for

deployment of intersection safety cameras. The sites selected should have a demonstrated

safety problem, such as results from previous evaluations of intersection safety camera

after installation. In addition, sites should be selected such that the life-cycle cost of

deployment of the intersection safety camera will be less than the safety benefits that will

accrue from reduced numbers of crashes and the associated costs. (de Leur & Milner,

2011)

The twelfth offering of a Mentors Program at Texas A&M University on

Advanced Surface Transportation Systems presented a document in 2002 by the

Advanced Institute in Transportation Systems Operations and Management. One of the

papers that was discussed and presented was about the criterion of sites selection. The

59

paper has an introduction that indicates the lack of papers and studies related to RLC site

selection and the actual need for a uniform set of criteria to aid traffic engineers and cities

in the site selection process. From a survey that included most of US cities that have

RLC installed in their transportation system, results showed that the three most

commonly used criteria are the history of red light crashes, red light citations, and

engineering issues associated with intersection.

The author of the paper suggested a set of major and minor guidelines that should

be used. The guidelines are developed using successful experiences with similar

situations. Guidelines are used when a policy would be too limiting or confining, or for

situations that are highly variable. They allow careful assessment of intersection

conditions that are indicators for the need of traffic control devices or engineering

countermeasures. These guidelines were presented as follows:

Major guidelines 1. Accident History

The use of accident statistics can be helpful in this area, though the author disagrees with

the total reliance on them alone. Accident statistics should be used to identify problem

areas that need to be investigated further.

2. Red Light Citation History

The evidence that there is a problem is a good indicator that countermeasures need to be

implemented. Usually the presence of these citations is more of an indicator of allocation

of available police resources and the relative safety of enforcing the law. Nevertheless,

this is a red flag that should alert one to possible problem intersections though others may

exist.

60

3. Approach Speeds

As the speed increases, the severity of resulting crashes increase as well. There may be

situations where there are high approach speeds and high violations, but few crashes.

These areas need to be further evaluated and closely monitored for possible development

of crashes.

Minor guidelines

1. Traffic and Pedestrian Volumes

Generally higher traffic volumes relate to a greater probability of violations and crashes.

This is of particular concern when the cross-street traffic volumes are also high as well.

While the crash of two vehicles can result in either injury or death, the same is not true of

a vehicle-pedestrian collision. Intuitively, the pedestrian is almost always killed or

severely injured when a vehicle runs a red light and collides with them. As a result,

intersections with high pedestrian volumes and/ or traffic volumes need to be closely

examined.

2. Intersection Degree of Saturation

With higher degrees of saturations at intersections the headway gaps between vehicles are

smaller. Consequentially, there is a greater probably of a vehicle running a red light

whether intentionally or unintentionally. The difference between these two intentions

needs to be recognized and quantified.

3. Perceived Benefit to Cost

As with all engineering countermeasures, the costs associated with the installation of a

system should be evaluated. These costs do not only include the costs of construction and

equipment, but also the beneficial costs received from the reduction in crashes due to red

61

light violators. (Qu, 2003)

From analysis of the data, there are intersections in Rhode Island where RLR is a

problem. A model is developed to prioritize intersections based on a Composite

Intersection Index (CII), where the highest score indicates the most problematic

intersection. The CII is based on a comprehensive set of variables including the

following: (1) the entering average daily traffic (ADT) (in 10,000s of vehicles) per

number of lanes entering the intersection; (2) the rate of RLR violations occurring after 1

second; (3) the number of phases; and the (4) average approach speed (based on approach

speed limits). (Hunter, 2003)

62

CHAPTER IV

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

Although red light cameras are widely used to discourage red light running,

relatively few studies have been done on how to best deploy these cameras to maximize

their efficacy. Due to their high price tags, many jurisdictions will purchase a relatively

smaller number of cameras and rotate them among a larger number of camera-ready

intersections. This methodology chapter is divided into two sections. The first section is a

brief description of the reasons behind choosing these cities and a representation of the

data required to complete the study. The second section covers the analytical-based

methodology, which will be used to determine the number of cameras needed to

effectively enforce locations within a certain city limit. The study will use data from the

cities of Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, and Denver to be able to implement the

methodology and derive the findings.

Why These Locations as Case Studies?

There are several reasons for choosing these locations, which I divided into

general and specific reasons:

1) General Reasons

There is an ongoing controversy in the state of Colorado regarding the

effectiveness of red light cameras, which generated two bills to the State Senate during

the years of 2012 and 2013. Areas like RLC is main objective, types of crashes it is

causing, and the involvement in public privacy are some of concerns citizens hold on

RLC, and therefore studies like this will clarify some argumentative points.

63

The case studies represent three cities with different characteristics, which is

another concern associated with implementing RLC systems, and therefore results should

indicate whether the system can or cannot be impacted by different city characteristics.

Additionally, it is obvious that such a topic is highly based on the data collection

stage (as mentioned earlier), which may require several calls, field investigations, and

physical visits to the data sources, besides the need to physically commute to these cities

several times to collect and update some of the collected data. Therefore, data

accessibility is another reason why these cities were chosen.

2) Specific Reasons (effective and ineffective programs)

In Colorado Springs, the RLC program started back in 2010 and was shut down

one year after that for ineffective results. It seems obvious that there was something

implemented or managed differently than in the Fort Collins and Denver cases that have

been running their programs for more years (over 10 years already). Consequently, the

study can make a very solid comparison between current actual RLC locations and the

ones suggested by the study.

Finally, availability of data for a good length of time in the city of Colorado

Springs, Fort Collins, and Denver is a plus for choosing the cities as case studies,

especially with RLC site selection studies that require at least a period of 3 years data to

show meaningful results.

Data Required and Field Investigation

In order to implement the criterion of RLC sites selection, specific data are

required. Most of the data were obtained from the traffic engineering office, police

64

department, and from some field investigation of each city, while other types of data were

not available and therefore not included in the analysis chapter.

The following data were collected for 82 signalized intersections in Colorado

Springs (from 2007-2009), 106 signalized intersections in Fort Collins (from 2010-2012),

and 309 signalized intersections in Denver (from 2010-2012). (Note: all data are for a 3-

year period).

- Traffic volume/ approach/ intersection.

- Crash Types which were categorized into front to side, rear-end crashes and other.

- Crash severity that is divided into fatal crashes, injury crashes, and property

damage crashes.

- Approach or direction of the “At-fault” vehicle.

- Intersection characteristics.

- Overall final locations of RLC.

Table 10 illustrates the type of data, its source, and time period where data was

collected.

65

Table 10 Data required for RLC sites selection Criterion

Data Name Data Types Source Time Period

Traffic Volume / Approach / Intersection EB, WB, NB, SB City Traffic Engineering Office. 3 Years

Crash Types Front to side, Rear-end City Police Dept. 3 Years

Crash Severity Fatal, Injury, PDO City Police Dept. 3 Years

Vehicle Types Commercial, Pass, Trucks City Police Dept. 3 Years

Crash History Date of Crashes City Police Dept. 3 Years

Economic Evaluation Cost per Crash types, Cost of RLC.

City Traffic Engineering Office, Insurance agencies Current

Intersection Characteristics

Intersection Layout, Approach Speed,

City Traffic Engineering office and Field Investigation Current

Social Structure, and Traffic Signal Timing

Direction of At-Fault Vehicle EB, NB, WB, SB City Police Dept. 3 Years

RLC Selected Locations Overall RLC locations Field Investigation Current

66

Methodology

There are several possible criteria and procedures that could be used for RLC site

selection, but the availability of data must be taken into account in developing the criteria

and procedures. In the study, there are two main phases, each having specific criteria that

could be followed in order to identify candidate RLC sites.

All signalized intersections with available data in each city will be screened and

tested using the criteria in Phase I. Before moving to Phase II, candidate RLC sites from

each test will be scaled by weighting factors determined by the city stakeholders and

decision makers to make the final ranking list. Finally, qualified intersections will be

evaluated by conducting a comprehensive field investigation in Phase II.

The following provides a detailed description of the two phases and tests under

each of them.

Phase I “Includes Four Criteria”

1- Criterion of Crashes Severity

Although crash frequency has often been the primary consideration in the

implementation of RLC, crashes differ in severity. There are several levels of crash

severity which should be considered when choosing RLC location. From the literature

review, crash severity is mostly divided into three different levels: crashes resulting in

fatalities, injuries, and property damage only. Each of these crash severities was given a

relative weight representing its impact level.

- 100 for crashes resulting in fatalities.

- 10 for crashes resulting in injuries.

1 for crashes resulting in property damage only.

all intersections within the city limit by dividing the total number of

categorized by severity level

the following formula:

N-CSL

Equation 1 Normalized- Crash Serverity Level

Where:

N-CSL = Normalized Crashes

F = Crashes Resulting in Fatalities.

I = Crashes Resulting in Injuries.

PD = Crashes Resulting in Property Damage.

TC = Total Crashes.

It is important to note that

high crash severity but few

severity level without normalizing the equation by

following equation, using the following

CSL

Equation 2 Crash Severity Level

1 for crashes resulting in property damage only.Crash Severity could be ranked for

all intersections within the city limit by dividing the total number of crashes

categorized by severity level and then normalized by the total number of

CSL =

Crash Serverity Level (Colorado Springs Traffic Engineering Office, 2011)

Crashes Severity Level

Fatalities.

Injuries.

Property Damage.

It is important to note that the crash severity level equation may identify sites with

severity but few crashes. Thus, it is also preferred to calculate the

severity level without normalizing the equation by the total number of crashes

ation, using the following equation:

CSL =

Crash Severity Level (Colorado Springs Traffic Engineering Office, 2011)

67

Severity could be ranked for

crashes that are

crashes using

(Colorado Springs Traffic Engineering Office, 2011)

equation may identify sites with

it is also preferred to calculate the crash

crashes using the

(Colorado Springs Traffic Engineering Office, 2011)

68

The higher crash severity level is for a specific intersection, the higher that intersection is

ranked among the list of the city’s intersections. (This applies to both equations).

Where:

CSL = Crash Severity Level

2- Potential For Improvement (PFI)

The term potential for improvement (PFI) is used as a measure for identification

of the criteria crash rate and crash frequency for all locations included in a city, based on

a certain parameter or benchmark. Figure (19) shows a graphical illustration of the

concept of PFI, and why some values are below the line (negative). In the graphic, sites 1

and 2 have a positive value for the PFI, as they are above the blue line. Conversely, site 3

has a negative value for the PFI, as it is below the line.

In each of the case studies, potential for improvement will be measured in crash

rate and crash frequency. Since average rate was used as a parameter, the locations will

be divided into positive and negative values. Negative values mean that there is no

potential for improvement. In fact, these locations are performing better than normal /

average. The negative crash rate (or frequency) value means that this is the number of

crashes below an average crash rate (or frequency) level and since it is below, there is no

PFI. In the other hand, the positive crash rate and frequency value means that this is the

number of crashes above an average crash rate (frequency) level and since it is above,

there is a PFI.

Normally, collision prediction model (CPM) is used as a parameter to measure

potential for improvement, however, in this study the normal average rate will be used

instead. (See equation 5)

Figure 18 Illustration of the term potential for i

From three years crashes

thankfully provided, potential for improvement

follows:

- PFI in Crash Rate

It is a model that has become a standard method for measure

performance and especially for RLC candidate site

calculated by subtracting

of each site. As shown in equation 3, this criterion

crash rate for each intersection

expressed as follows:

PFI in

Annual Crash

Illustration of the term potential for improvement.

crashes and volume per approach data that each of the cities

potential for improvement can be obtained from the

Rate (Crash/Movement)

It is a model that has become a standard method for measurement of road safety

pecially for RLC candidate sites selection. This criterion

calculated by subtracting estimated crash rate (the parameter) from annual crash rate

of each site. As shown in equation 3, this criterion will provide PFI in

for each intersection based on three years data and it can be

PFI in Crash Rate (Crash / Movement) per intersection

Crash Rate per intersection – Estimated Crash Rate per

Equation 3 PFI in crash rate (ALTurki, 2013)

69

each of the cities has

two criteria as

of road safety

This criterion can be

annual crash rate

in relation to

and it can be mathematically

=

per intersection

Where Annual Crash

calculated using the following equations:

Annual Crash

where,

= Total Crashes per intersection.

= Annual Average Daily Traffic per intersection.

And,

Estimated

Where:

- PFI in Crash Frequency (

While PFI in crash rate of each intersection is

RLC candidate sites, PFI in

when making the candidate list

Rate per intersection and Estimated Crash Rate per intersection

calculated using the following equations:

Crash Rate per intersection/million vehicles =

Equation 4 Annual crash rate

= Total Crashes per intersection.

= Annual Average Daily Traffic per intersection.

Estimated Crash Rate per intersection/million vehicles/ year =

Equation 5 Estimated crash rate

Obtained by performing regression analysis.

requency (Crash/ Year)

rate of each intersection is an important step towards selecting

PFI in crash frequency is another important criterion

when making the candidate lists.

70

intersection are

Obtained by performing regression analysis.

important step towards selecting

criterion to consider

Once PFI in collision

frequency can also be cal

estimated annual crashes

Equation

where,

Annual Crashes = TC/3

As a result, both PFI in

two lists of candidate RLC sites

that the higher crash rate

among the list of the candidate

candidate list.

3- Criterion of Crashes

One of the major argument points with

crashes that usually decrease or increase due to the implementation of the RLC. As

indicated in the literature review chapter,

the front to side type of crashes

wherever an RLC is implemented.

This is an importa

phase one especially with

within the city limit, crash

high proportion of rear-end

collision rate is calculated for each intersection, PFI in

frequency can also be calculated by multiplying annual crashes per intersection by

estimated annual crashes. It can be expressed as follows:

PFI in Crash Frequency (Crash/ Year) =

Equation 6 PFI in Crash frequency (ALTurki, 2013)

PFI in crash rate and PFI in crash frequency will make another

RLC sites based on the potential for improvement criterion.

rate for a specific intersection, the higher that intersection is ranked

candidate intersections. Similarly, this applies to the

Crashes Types

major argument points with regard to RLC programs is the type of

that usually decrease or increase due to the implementation of the RLC. As

indicated in the literature review chapter, most studies have shown an overall decrease on

crashes and contrarily an increase on rear-end type

wherever an RLC is implemented.

This is an important criterion that could be used as part of RLC sites selection

especially with the availability of such data. From all signalized intersections

crash types are available and the idea here is to avoid locations with

end crashes and target those with high proportion front to side

71

PFI in crash

per intersection by

frequency will make another

criterion. Note

for a specific intersection, the higher that intersection is ranked

the crash frequency

regard to RLC programs is the type of

that usually decrease or increase due to the implementation of the RLC. As

studies have shown an overall decrease on

end type crashes

sites selection

signalized intersections

types are available and the idea here is to avoid locations with

et those with high proportion front to side

type of crashes. The following formula is used to calculate the front to side type of

crashes rate:

Figure

where

4- Weighting Scale for

It is very important to note that

top 10 lists of candidate intersections

projects in the same field, this is

This step requires a subjective judgment on the part of the group making the

evaluation which is in this case would the city engineering office represented by their city

engineers (See tables 11,12,and 13)

importance and then by using a formula of proportionality to obtain relative ratio weights

(Nicholas J. Garber, 2015)

Equation 7 Proportionality to obtain relative w

Where

The following formula is used to calculate the front to side type of

Figure 19 Calculation of crash type rate (ALTurki, 2013)

for RLC Intersection Candidates

It is very important to note that all criteria from phase I could result in different

of candidate intersections, and according to many previous studies and

projects in the same field, this is a normal scenario.

This step requires a subjective judgment on the part of the group making the

evaluation which is in this case would the city engineering office represented by their city

(See tables 11,12,and 13). Next, each intersection will be ranked in order o

n by using a formula of proportionality to obtain relative ratio weights

(Nicholas J. Garber, 2015).

ortionality to obtain relative weights (Nicholas J. Garber, 2015)

72

The following formula is used to calculate the front to side type of

could result in different

, and according to many previous studies and

This step requires a subjective judgment on the part of the group making the

evaluation which is in this case would the city engineering office represented by their city

each intersection will be ranked in order of

n by using a formula of proportionality to obtain relative ratio weights

(Nicholas J. Garber, 2015)

73

Next, weighted scores from all top 10 locations from each of the criteria will be

added up to make the final top 10 that combined all the criteria in phase I.

The final top 10 should be processed and moved on towards Phase II for further

analysis to conclude the final RLC candidate list for each city.

Table 11 Weighting percentages for criterions in Phase I for Colorado Springs. (Colorado Springs Traffic

Engineering Office, 2011)

Criterion Name Weight

Normalized Crashes Severity 15%

Crashes Severity 20%

Crashes Rate 20%

Crashes Frequency 30%

Crashes Type 15%

Table 12 Weighting percentages for criterions in Phase I for Fort Collins (Fort Collins Traffic Engineering

Office, 2012).

Criterion Name Weight

Normalized Crashes Severity 20%

Crashes Severity 15%

Crashes Rate 35%

Crashes Frequency 25%

Crashes Type 5%

Table 13 Weighting percentages for criterions in Phase I for Denver (Denver Traffic Engineering Office,

2012).

Criterion Name Weight

Normalized Crashes Severity 15%

Crashes Severity 5%

Crashes Rate 35%

Crashes Frequency 40%

Crashes Type 5%

Phase II “Includes Seven

1- Fluctuation of Crashes

For the final top 10 RLC candidate

can be used to see if crash

this criterion over the final

are abnormally fluctuated and excessive variability

This can be calculated using the coefficie

Equation 8 c

Where:

S = The standard deviation.

= Sample mean (Annual collision).

As known, the sample mean

Where:

x = Sample data (Annual collision).

n = Sample size (Number of years of data).

And, the standard deviation

Seven Criteria”

Crashes

10 RLC candidate locations, some traditional statistical measures

crash frequencies are historically fluctuated or stable

this criterion over the final top 10 list from phase I will help eliminate sites where data

are abnormally fluctuated and excessive variability in crashes and violations are

can be calculated using the coefficient of variation (V) formula:

. 100

collision cofefficieient of variation (de Leur & Milner, 2011)

he standard deviation.

mean (Annual collision).

sample mean ( ) can be calculated by using the following formula:

x =

Equation 9 Sample mean

= Sample data (Annual collision).

n = Sample size (Number of years of data).

deviation (s) can be calculated using the following formula:

74

, some traditional statistical measures

fluctuated or stable. Performing

will help eliminate sites where data

in crashes and violations are found.

(de Leur & Milner, 2011)

by using the following formula:

can be calculated using the following formula:

Equation 10

2- Type of Vehicles

From the final top 10 candidate RLC sites, type of vehicles

atypically involved in crashes

installation of the RLC.

RLC benefits might be limited at these locations because they

license plates of tractor unit of multiunit vehicl

license plates of very large trucks.

photographing multiunit vehicles are recommended at these locations.

Type of vehicles can be screened and analyzed using the

shown in the following formula:

Equation 11 Type of v

Where

vehicle type in reference population and

s =

10 Fluctuation of crashes by calculating the standard mean

From the final top 10 candidate RLC sites, type of vehicles that have been

crashes or violations can be screened to consider during the

RLC benefits might be limited at these locations because they cannot

of tractor unit of multiunit vehicles or are not capable of photographing

license plates of very large trucks. As a result, cameras with features that are capable of

photographing multiunit vehicles are recommended at these locations.

Type of vehicles can be screened and analyzed using the chi-square test

shown in the following formula:

Type of vehciles by calculating Chi-square test. (de Leur & Milner, 2011)

where is the proportion of a

vehicle type in reference population and f is the total vehicle types at a site

75

by calculating the standard mean

that have been

consider during the

cannot photograph

es or are not capable of photographing

As a result, cameras with features that are capable of

square test ( )

(de Leur & Milner, 2011)

is the proportion of a

76

3- Economic Evaluation

As discussed in the literature review chapter, a big chunk of the argument related

to the RLC systems is based on the opinion that it is more about increasing cities’

revenue rather than improving the safety level. Therefore, considering this element while

selecting RLC locations is a plus toward the success of the program in any community.

An economic evaluation of each of the final top 10 RLC candidates will evaluate

these locations after installation in an annual basis. Cost of RLC, revenue generated from

the system, and safety benefits are the three elements involved to execute this criterion.

Total Cost of RLC per year + Total Revenue of RLC per year < Total Safety Benefits per year

Equation 12 RLC Economic evaluation. (ALTurki, 2013)

Where:

Total Cost of RLC = Overall cost of RLC installation, operation, maintenance in a given location

/ Year. (This can be obtained from RLC providers).

Total Revenue of RLC = Overall revenue generated by RLC in a given location / Year. (Total of

RLC tickets value)

Ave Safety Benefits = Average cost of a crash producing PDO and injuries. (Determined by

major auto insurance companies)

According to the city of Fort Collins around 80-100 tickets/month are generated by RLC

which means a revenue of $120,000/year. If quick assumptions are made, a RLC costs

$40,000 which means $480,000/year, that includes the process of installation, operation,

and maintenance. This will total up to $600,000 (if we assume city and operator are

lobbying together as claimed by parties standing against the system).

77

A study published by the National safety council estimated motor-vehicle crashes as

(National Safety Council, 2000):

Death = $1M

Injuries= $35,500

PDO= $6,500

The estimates were based on wage and productivity losses, medical expenses,

administrative expenses, motor vehicle damaged, and employer costs. If estimates are

used as average safety estimate, then there is no doubt that average safety benefits will

exceed total cost and revenue of RLC, because if RLC prevents 2 crashes resulting in

injuries/ month = $71,000 (which is more than $850,000 per year. Injuries level of

severity alone will exceed RLC cost and revenue combined.

By the end of each year, locations where safety benefits exceed total RLC cost

and revenue are proofing their economic effectiveness and should remain under operation.

In contrast, locations where total RLC cost and revenue are more than its safety benefits

are not considered economically effective and should be eliminated.

4- Intersection Characteristics

During sites selection criterion “Phase II”, more variables are used to eliminate

these qualified intersections even further. One of the steps is to visit the sites and

evaluate their characteristics and suitability for RLC based on (PASS and FAIL) scoring

system. Locations with high PASS score indicate a need for further action such as a RLC

system, while locations with low PASS score indicate a need to fix these characteristics

before installing a RLC.

78

There are four characteristics that should be included as part of the field

evaluation, these are:

� Intersection Layout: It includes four guidelines:

•••• Lane width: Lane widths are commonly narrower on low volume roads and wider

on higher volume roads. According to ITE, 12- foot lanes are desirable, although

widths as narrow as 10 feet have been used in severely constrained situations

unless large trucks and buses are using the lane. Therefore, the range from 10-12

will be sat as a parameter for all final top 10 sites.

•••• Lighting: Statistics indicate that the non-daylight accident rate is higher than that

during daylight hours. This fact, to a large degree, may be attributed to impaired

visibility. In urban and suburban areas where there are concentrations of

pedestrians and roadside and intersectional interferences, fixed-source lighting

tends to reduce crashes (American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2001).

•••• Clear Signage: Roadway signs in the United States increasingly use symbols

rather than words to convey their message. Symbols provide instant

communication with roadway users, overcome language barriers, and are

becoming standard for traffic control devices throughout the world. Familiarity

with symbols on traffic signs is important for every road user in order to maintain

the safety and efficiency of our transportation facilities. Proper and clear signs

associated with the nature of the intersection design is a must for each of the final

top 10 sites to pass the field investigation.

79

•••• Channelization: One of the most effective and efficient methods of controlling

the traffic on a highway is the adoption of high intersection geometric design

standards. Channelization is an integral part of at grade intersections and is used

to separate turning movements from through movements where this is considered

advisable and hence helps reduce the intensity and frequency of loss of life and

property due to accidents to a large extent. Proper Channelization increases

capacity, improves safety, provides maximum convenience, and instills driver

confidence. Improper Channelization has the opposite effect and may be worse

than none at all. Over Channelization should be avoided because it could create

confusion and worsen operations. Channelization is defined as the separation or

regulation of conflicting traffic movements into delineated paths of travel by

traffic islands or pavement marking to facilitate the safe and orderly movements

of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians.

All guidelines should meet CDOT requirements for signalized intersections (

Colorado Department of Transportation, 2000).

� Approach Speed: Speed limits are set by each state or territory. Speed limits are

always posted in increments of five miles per hour. Some states have lower limits

for trucks and at night, and occasionally there are minimum speed limits. Most

speed limits are set by state or local statute, although each state allows various

agencies to set a different, generally lower, limit. However in this study, the pass

parameter is that to have the average speed limit less or equal to the posted speed

limit in order to pass the field investigation.

80

� Yellow Phase Change Interval: As discussed earlier, excessively short or long

yellow change intervals may encourage driver disrespect and unsafe operating

practices. Therefore, it is important to confirm that all top 10 RLC candidates are

within the suggested ITE yellow interval values (See table 14).

Table 14 Pre-calculated yellow intervals at various speeds.

Posted Speed Limit

(mph)

Minimum Yellow Vehicle Change Interval

(sec)

15 3

20 3

25 3

30 3.2

35 3.6

40 3.9

45 4.3

50 4.7

55 5

60 5.4

65 5.8

� Social Structure: Another worthwhile evaluation characteristic here is to make

sure the area where RLC will be installed is suitable and has no excessive

vandalism that would target the camera. This can be measured by reviewing

criminal history and income level of the area, which is normally provided by the

city police department.

81

Figure 20 A vandalized RLC in Phoenix Arizona. (Garrett, 2011)

Table 15 Sample of field evaluation table used to evaluate intersection characteristics. (ALTurki, 2013)

Intersection Characteristic Name Evaluation Points Score (P/F)

Overall Score (out of 7)

Intersection Name

Intersection Layout

Lane Width

Lightening

Channelization

Signage Yellow Change

Interval Meet ITE guidelines

Approach Speed Ave Speed ≤ Posted Speed

Social Structure Criminal history and Income

level

82

6- Approaches Determination

From the literature review, implementing RLC does not apply to all approaches

because of many reasons like the cost of the equipment itself, which exceeds $40,000 to

lease per month. Therefore, it is highly important to define the approach that the vehicle

at fault was using as part of the sites selection processes. This step could be processed

after specifying the intersections from Phase I and by eliminating the number of

intersections to approaches only. (See Table 16)

Table 16 Table used for determining numbers of “at-fault vehicles” in each approach (ALTurki, 2013)

Number of at fault vehicles / approach

Intersection # Intersection EB WB NB SB TC

1 Name

7- Red Light Camera Locations

As noted in the literature review chapter, placing RLCs close to each other or

distributing them along the same corridor might limit their safety impact. It is also

important to place the cameras in a manner where residents of the city feel the equity and

do not have the feeling that they are targeted from other parts of the city.

Therefore, two major factors can be the guidance in this regard; those are distance

and direction. When determining RLC final locations, there should not be any cameras

that are located in the same traffic travel direction unless it is located in a distance of 3

miles or more (ALTurki, 2013).

Table 17 presents a conclusion for all criteria, formulas, and expected findings

from phases I and II of the methodology chapter.

83

Table 17 Formulas used to obtain final findings

Phase Criterion Name

1

Crashes Severity

(Normalized)

Crashes Severity

Potential for

improvement

Formula

=

=

PFI in relation to Crash Rate (Crash/ Movement) =

Final Finding

Ranked

Collision

Severity for all

Intersections

normalized by

total number of

crashes

Ranked

Collision

Severity for all

Intersections

Rank

intersections

84

Phase Criterion Name

Crashes Types

Relative Weight

2 Fluctuation of

Formula

Annual Crash Rate per intersection – Estimated Annual Crashes per intersection

PFI in relation to Crash Frequency (Crash/ Year) =

(determined by stakeholders)

Final Finding

per intersection PFI based on

collision rate

Rank

intersections

PFI based on

collision

frequency

Target High

front to side

Final top 10

candidate list

Sites with

85

Phase Criterion Name

Crashes

Type of Vehicles

Economic

Evaluation Total Cost

Intersection

(Approach)

Formula

. 100

Total Cost of RLC per year + Total Revenue of RLC per year < Total Safety

Benefits per year

- Intersection Layout.

- Approach Speed.

Final Finding

excessive

variability in

crashes and

violations

Cameras

photograph

multiunit

vehicles

Safety

Comparison

between safety

benefits and

RLC cost

Prioritize

approaches

86

Phase Criterion Name Formula Final Finding

Characteristics - Yellow Phase Interval.

- Social Structure.

based in their

characteristics

Approaches

Determination

“Direction of At-Fault vehicles”

Approach

Direction

Red Light Camera

Location

“ Not in same traffic travel direction unless it more than 3 miles away

from a RLC ”

Increase safety

impact and

equity level

among

residents

87

Expected Findings

This part of the study will provide an analytical-based methodology for RLC sites

selection that could be used by any city that decides to launch a RLC program within a

certain jurisdiction. This analytical-based methodology was also supported by a field

investigation that ensures comprehensive analysis and more accurate final RLC

candidates.

The advantage of this methodology is the fact that it is based on two main phases

that require accessible and available data in many cities. This allows any city to analyze

and implement the program faster than similar projects normally take while maintaining

comprehensiveness, as it was shown in table 17.

In this chapter, three

of the RLC site selection

Section two presents the field investigation

II); and finally the final findi

presented from all three cases.

Section I: Analyses of RLC Sites

Phase I: From phase I of

first criterion. The following equation

based on crash severity level using the following equation:

CSL

Tables 18 and 19 show the top 10 RLC candidate locations based on

(CSL) and the Normalized

the city.

CHAPTER V

ANALYSES AND FINDINGS

three sections are presented; section one shows complete analyses

RLC site selection from Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, and Denver

the field investigation to eliminate intersection candidates (Phase

the final findings, conclusion, and recommendations of the study

cases.

RLC Sites Selection for Colorado Springs

Colorado Springs

of the methodology chapter, test of crash severity comes as

The following equation will be used to rank 82 signalized intersections

based on crash severity level using the following equation:

CSL =

the top 10 RLC candidate locations based on crash

and the Normalized-crash Severity Level (N-CSL) from all 82 locations

88

complete analyses

from Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, and Denver (Phase I).

to eliminate intersection candidates (Phase

of the study are

severity comes as the

signalized intersections

crash Severity Level

from all 82 locations studied in

89

Table 18 Ranking of top 10 RLC candidates in Colorado Springs based on normalized crash severity level.

Rank Intersection Name N-CSL Weighted

1 N ACADEMY BL/VICKERS DR 19.92 0.150

2 DUBLIN BL/N UNION BL 12.51 0.094

3 N CHESTNUT ST/W GARDEN OF THE GODS RD 11.74 0.088

4 DRENNAN RD/S ACADEMY BL 8.97 0.068

5 E UINTAH ST/N CASCADE AV 8.45 0.064

6 AIRPORT RD/S ACADEMY BL 8.11 0.061

7 BRIARGATE PY/N POWERS BL 7.6 0.057

8 DUBLIN BL/N POWERS BL 6.8 0.051

9 BARNES RD/TUTT BL 5.5 0.041 Note: (*) refers to intersections that do not exist on table19.

Table 19 Ranking of top 10 RLC candidates in Colorado Springs based on crash severity.

Rank Intersection Name CSL Weighted

1 AIRPORT RD/S ACADEMY BL 811 0.200

2 N ACADEMY BL/VICKERS DR 777 0.192

3 DUBLIN BL/N UNION BL 538 0.133

4 BRIARGATE PY/N POWERS BL 456 0.112

5 DUBLIN BL/N POWERS BL 401 0.099

6 E PLATTE AV/N ACADEMY BL * 376 0.093

7 N CHESTNUT ST/W GARDEN OF THE GODS RD 364 0.090

8 MAIZELAND RD/N ACADEMY BL * 339 0.084

9 DRENNAN RD/S ACADEMY BL 314 0.077

10 N CAREFREE CR/N POWERS BL * 284 0.070 Note: (*) refers to intersections that do not exist on table18.

90

Tables 20 and 21 show the top 10 RLC candidate locations in the city of Colorado

Springs based on their potential for improvement in relation to crash rate and crash

frequency.

Table 20 Ranking of top 10 RLC candidates in Colorado Springs based on potential for improvement in

relation to crash rate.

PFI

Rank Intersection Name Crash Rate Weighted

1 BRIARGATE PY/N POWERS BL 1.02 0.20

2 BARNES RD/N POWERS BL 0.86 0.17

3 E WOODMEN RD/I-25 0.71 0.14

4 AIRPORT RD/S ACADEMY BL 0.63 0.12

5 E PLATTE AV/N UNION BL 0.54 0.10

6 N POWERS BL/STETSON HILLS BL 0.49 0.10

7 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/N UNION BL 0.38 0.07

8 MAIZELAND RD/N ACADEMY BL * 0.33 0.06

9 MILTON E PROBY PY/S POWERS BL * 0.32 0.06

10 AIRPORT RD/S POWERS BL * 0.31 0.06 Note: (*) refers to intersections that do not exist on table 21.

Table 21 Ranking of top 10 RLC candidates in Colorado Springs based on potential for improvement in

relation to crash Frequency.

PFI

Rank Intersection Name Crash Freq Weighted

1 E WOODMEN RD/I-25 37.56 0.30

2 BARNES RD/N POWERS BL 18.28 0.15

3 AIRPORT RD/S ACADEMY BL 15.69 0.13

4 I-25/W GARDEN OF THE GODS RD 13.22 0.11

5 N POWERS BL/STETSON HILLS BL 11.23 0.09

6 E PLATTE AV/N ACADEMY BL * 11.20 0.09

7 BRIARGATE PY/N POWERS BL 10.70 0.09

8 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/N UNION BL 10.62 0.08

9 N CAREFREE CR/N POWERS BL * 8.53 0.07

10 E PLATTE AV/N UNION BL 8.27 0.07 Note: (*) refers to intersections that do not exist on table 20.

91

Figure 21 Colorado Springs reported crashes in relation to annual average daily traffic

After running a regression analysis with an R-square = .47 and p-value that is well below

0.05, A graph was drawn as shown in figure 21 which reports how much the data of 3

years of crashes varies around the fitted blue curve.

Table 22 shows top 10 RLC candidates from all 82 signalized intersections

studied in the city of Colorado Springs that combine both of a high proportion of front to

side crashes and low proportion of rear end crashes.

Table 22 Ranking of top 10 RLC candidates in Colorado Springs based on crash type.

Rank Intersection Front to Side Rate Weighted

1 E PLATTE AV/N ACADEMY BL 0.76 0.150

2 E PLATTE AV/N UNION BL 0.63 0.124

3 BRIARGATE PY/N POWERS BL 0.60 0.117

4 N POWERS BL/N UNION BL 0.50 0.099

5 N ACADEMY BL/PALMER PARK BL 0.46 0.091

6 I-25/S CIRCLE DR 0.39 0.077

7 N POWERS BL/OLD RANCH RD 0.37 0.073

8 PRINTERS PY/S PARKSIDE DR 0.37 0.073

9 DUBLIN BL/N UNION BL 0.37 0.073

10 I-25/W UINTAH ST 0.35 0.070

92

Before moving to phase II of the red light camera site selection in Colorado

Springs and after calculating the top 10 candidate intersections from each of the criteria

show earlier, it is essential to present the final top 10 RLC candidate intersections from

all criteria combined. Using the weighting formula described in the methodology chapter,

the final top 10 candidates (highlighted in grey) come as shown in table 23:

93

Table 23 Final top 10 RLC candidates in Colorado Springs for all criteria in phase I.

Rank Intersection / Criteria CSL N-CSL PFI-Crash Freq PFI-Crash Rate Crash Types Total

1 BRIARGATE PY/N POWERS BL 0.112 0.057 0.085 0.200 0.117 0.572

2 AIRPORT RD/S ACADEMY BL 0.200 0.061 0.125 0.122 0.048 0.556

3 E WOODMEN RD/I-25 0.057 0.009 0.300 0.139 0.048 0.552

4 E PLATTE AV/N ACADEMY BL 0.093 0.027 0.089 0.057 0.150 0.416

5 BARNES RD/N POWERS BL 0.043 0.013 0.146 0.167 0.018 0.387

6 E PLATTE AV/N UNION BL 0.035 0.017 0.066 0.105 0.124 0.348

7 N ACADEMY BL/VICKERS DR 0.192 0.150 -0.029 -0.031 0.040 0.321

8 N POWERS BL/STETSON HILLS BL 0.056 0.021 0.090 0.096 0.048 0.310

9 MAIZELAND RD/N ACADEMY BL 0.084 0.037 0.057 0.065 0.062 0.305

10 DUBLIN BL/N UNION BL 0.133 0.094 0.001 0.001 0.073 0.302

11 N CAREFREE CR/N POWERS BL 0.070 0.025 0.068 0.056 0.051 0.270

12 I-25/W GARDEN OF THE GODS RD 0.051 0.012 0.106 0.046 0.037 0.251

13 DUBLIN BL/N POWERS BL 0.099 0.051 0.034 0.041 0.022 0.247

14 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/N UNION BL 0.024 0.008 0.085 0.075 0.051 0.243

15 MILTON E PROBY PY/S POWERS BL 0.045 0.029 0.035 0.062 0.070 0.240

16 AIRPORT RD/S POWERS BL 0.051 0.022 0.056 0.060 0.051 0.240

17 N ACADEMY BL/PALMER PARK BL 0.025 0.012 0.037 0.038 0.091 0.204

18 N POWERS BL/N UNION BL 0.042 0.028 0.009 0.012 0.099 0.190

19 BARNES RD/TUTT BL 0.041 0.041 0.007 0.017 0.066 0.172

20 N POWERS BL/OLD RANCH RD 0.043 0.034 0.008 0.013 0.073 0.171

21 DRENNAN RD/S ACADEMY BL 0.077 0.068 -0.019 -0.026 0.048 0.148

22 PRINTERS PY/S PARKSIDE DR 0.008 0.010 0.008 0.031 0.073 0.131

23 N CHESTNUT ST/W GARDEN OF THE GODS RD 0.090 0.088 -0.048 -0.052 0.044 0.121

94

Rank Intersection / Criteria CSL N-CSL PFI-Crash Freq PFI-Crash Rate Crash Types Total

24 E UINTAH ST/N CASCADE AV 0.060 0.064 -0.020 -0.033 0.044 0.115

25 I-25/W UINTAH ST 0.028 0.011 -0.013 -0.007 0.070 0.088

26 I-25/S CIRCLE DR 0.026 0.011 -0.020 -0.012 0.077 0.082

27 N ACADEMY BL/SHRIDER RD 0.046 0.041 -0.033 -0.039 0.026 0.041

Note: Values highlighted in yellow refer to intersections that were ranked among top in that specific criterion.

Section II: Further Analysis and

Colorado Springs

Phase II: From table 23

be used to analyze these intersections further.

• Fluctuation of

Not applicable due to the unavailability of the type of vehicles data.

• Type of Vehicles

Not applicable due to the unavailability of the type

• Economic Evaluation

Total Cost of RLC per year

Not applicable due to the unavailability of the average safety benefits data from the state

of Colorado.

Further Analysis and Field Investigation of Top 10 RLC C

Colorado Springs

3 (Final top 10 RLC candidate intersections), six criteria

e these intersections further.

Fluctuation of Crashes

. 100

x =

s =

Not applicable due to the unavailability of the type of vehicles data.

Type of Vehicles

Not applicable due to the unavailability of the type of vehicles data.

Economic Evaluation

per year + Total Revenue of RLC per year < Total Safety Benefits

Not applicable due to the unavailability of the average safety benefits data from the state

95

Candidates in

e intersections), six criteria will

Total Safety Benefits per year

Not applicable due to the unavailability of the average safety benefits data from the state

96

• Intersection Characteristics

Table 24 Intersections field evaluation of Colorado Springs top 10 RLC candidates.

Intersection Characteristic Name Evaluation Points

Score (P/F)

Overall Score (out of 7)

BRIARGATE PY/N POWERS BL

Intersection Layout

Lane Width P

6

Lightening P

Channelization F

Signage P Yellow Change

Interval Meet ITE guidelines

P

Approach Speed Ave Speed ≤ Posted Speed P

Social Structure Criminal history and Income level P

AIRPORT RD/S ACADEMY BL

Intersection Layout

Lane Width F

3

Lightening F

Channelization F

Signage P Yellow Change

Interval Meet ITE guidelines

P

Approach Speed Ave Speed ≤ Posted Speed P

Social Structure Criminal history and Income level F

E WOODMEN RD/I-25

Intersection Layout

Lane Width P

6

Lightening P

Channelization F

Signage P Yellow Change

Interval Meet ITE guidelines

P

Approach Speed Ave Speed ≤ Posted Speed P

Social Structure Criminal history and Income level P

E PLATTE AV/N ACADEMY BL

Intersection Layout

Lane Width F

4

Lightening P

Channelization P

Signage P Yellow Change

Interval Meet ITE guidelines

F

Approach Speed Ave Speed ≤ Posted Speed F

Social Structure Criminal history and Income level P

BARNES RD/N POWERS BL

Intersection Layout

Lane Width P

5

Lightening P

Channelization P

97

Intersection Characteristic Name Evaluation Points

Score (P/F)

Overall Score (out of 7)

Signage P Yellow Change

Interval Meet ITE guidelines

F

Approach Speed Ave Speed ≤ Posted Speed F

Social Structure Criminal history and Income level P

E PLATTE AV/N UNION BL

Intersection Layout

Lane Width P

4

Lightening P

Channelization F

Signage P Yellow Change

Interval Meet ITE guidelines

F

Approach Speed Ave Speed ≤ Posted Speed F

Social Structure Criminal history and Income level P

N ACADEMY BL/VICKERS

DR

Intersection Layout

Lane Width P

6

Lightening P

Channelization P

Signage P Yellow Change

Interval Meet ITE guidelines

P

Approach Speed Ave Speed ≤ Posted Speed F

Social Structure Criminal history and Income level P

N POWERS BL/STETSON HILLS BL

Intersection Layout

Lane Width P

5

Lightening P

Channelization F

Signage P Yellow Change

Interval Meet ITE guidelines

F

Approach Speed Ave Speed ≤ Posted Speed P

Social Structure Criminal history and Income level P

MAIZELAND RD/N ACADEMY BL

Intersection Layout

Lane Width F

4

Lightening F

Channelization P

Signage P Yellow Change

Interval Meet ITE guidelines

P

Approach Speed Ave Speed ≤ Posted Speed F

Social Structure Criminal history and Income level P

DUBLIN BL/N UNION BL Intersection

Layout

Lane Width P

4

Lightening F

Channelization P

98

Intersection Characteristic Name Evaluation Points

Score (P/F)

Overall Score (out of 7)

Signage P Yellow Change

Interval Meet ITE guidelines

F

Approach Speed Ave Speed ≤ Posted Speed P

Social Structure Criminal history and Income level F

Figure 22 Briargate Py & N Powers Bl (Google Maps)

99

Figure 23 Airport Rd & S Academy Bl (Google Maps)

Figure 24 E Woodmen Rd/I-25 (Google Maps)

100

Figure 25 E Platte Av & N Academy Bl (Google Maps)

Figure 26 Barnes Rd & N Powers Blvd

101

Figure 27 E Platte Ave & N Union Blvd

Figure 28 N Academy Blvd & Vickers Dr (Google Maps)

102

Figure 29 N Powers Blvd & Stetson Hills Blvd

Figure 30 Maizeland Rd & N Academy Blvd

103

Figure 31 Dublin Blvd & N Union Blvd. (Google Maps)

As a conclusion of the intersection characteristics field investigation presented by

table 24, 3 out of 10 intersections that have the highest score will be qualified to get RLC

installed since they passed most of the intersection characteristics, but still have red light

related crashes. Those intersections are:

1) E Woodmen Rd & I-25.

2) Briargate Py & N Powers Blvd.

3) N Academy Blvd & Vickers Dr.

104

• Approach Determination.

Table 25 Number of at fault vehicles per approach (Colorado Springs)

Number of at-fault vehicles/approach

Inter # Intersection EB WB NB SB TC

1 E Woodmen Rd/I-25 16 13 47 35 111

2 Briargate PY/N Powers Blvd 11 31 17 41 100

3 N Academy Blvd/Vickers Dr 2 12 22 3 39

Considering the fact that RLC is normally installed at one approach of the

intersection, it was recommended that RLC should be installed at the northbound

approach of E Woodmen Rd/I-25, the southbound approach of Briargate PY/N Powers

Blvd, the northbound approach of N Academy Blvd/Vickers Dr. This was determined

given the history of at fault vehicles crashes per approach of each of the intersections for

the period of three years. (Table 25)

• RLC Locations

Below is a map with final RLC locations noting that they cannot be located within

3 miles of each other unless they are located in different directions. The intersection of

Briargate PY/N Powers Blvd is located within 3 miles of E Woodmen Rd/I-25. However,

their RLCs’ are recommended in different directions, therefore, they will be installed in

both locations. Additional RLC is recommended at the northbound of N Academy

Blvd/Vickers Dr. Final RLC locations in the city of Colorado Springs are shown in the

following map.

105

Figure 32 Final RLC locations (Colorado Springs)

Section I: Analyses of RLC Sites

Phase I: From phase I of the methodology chapter, test of crash severity comes as the

first criterion. The following equation will be used to rank 106 signalized intersections

based on crash severity level using the following equation:

CSL

Tables 26 and 27 show the top 10 RLC candidate locations based on

Level (CSL) and the Normalized

studied in the city.

s of RLC Sites Selection for Fort Collins.

Fort Collins

From phase I of the methodology chapter, test of crash severity comes as the

first criterion. The following equation will be used to rank 106 signalized intersections

on crash severity level using the following equation:

CSL =

show the top 10 RLC candidate locations based on Crash

Level (CSL) and the Normalized-Crash Severity Level (N-CSL) from all

106

From phase I of the methodology chapter, test of crash severity comes as the

first criterion. The following equation will be used to rank 106 signalized intersections

Crash Severity

CSL) from all 106 locations

107

Table 26 Ranking of top 10 RLC candidates in Fort Collins based on normalized crash severity level.

Rank Intersection Name N-CSL Weighted

1 LEMAY ROBERTSON * 14.5 0.2

2 CITY PARK ELIZABETH ST * 10 0.14

3 SHIELDS ST RAINTREE * 8.77 0.12

4 SHIELDS ST ROLLAND MOORE * 8.71 0.12

5 SHIELDS ST PLUM 8.33 0.11

6 LEMAY SOUTHRIDGE * 7.75 0.11

7 WORTHINGTON DRAKE * 7.75 0.11

8 TRADITION HORSETOOTH RD 7.75 0.11

9 SHIELDS ST SWALLOW * 7.43 0.10

10 BOARDWALK DR HARMONY RD 6.63 0.09 Note: (*) refers to intersections that do not exist in table 27.

Table 27 Ranking of top 10 RLC candidates in Fort Collins based on crash severity level.

Rank Intersection Name CSL Weighted

1 COLLEGE AV MONROE * 624 0.15

2 TIMBERLINE RD HORSETOOTH RD * 613 0.15

3 COLLEGE AV HORSETOOTH RD * 603 0.14

4 LEMAY HARMONY RD * 596 0.14

5 COLLEGE AV PROSPECT RD * 484 0.12

6 BOARDWALK DR HARMONY RD 477 0.11

7 SHIELDS ST PLUM 450 0.11

8 SHIELDS ST PROSPECT RD * 446 0.11

9 COLLEGE AV DRAKE RD * 407 0.10

10 TIMBERLINE RD HARMONY RD * 348 0.08 Note: Intersections highlighted in yellow refer to current RLC location while (*) refers to intersections that do

not exist in table 26.

108

Tables 28 and 29 show the top 10 RLC candidate locations in the city of Fort

Collins based on their potential for improvement in relation to crash rate and crash

frequency.

Table 28 Ranking of top 10 RLC candidates in Fort Collins based on potential for improvement in

relation to crash rate.

PFI

Rank Intersection Name Crash Rate Weighted

1 ZIEGLER ROCK CREEK * 1.17 0.350

2 COLLEGE AV MONROE 1.10 0.330

3 SHIELDS ST MULBERRY ST 0.92 0.277

4 COLLEGE AV TRILBY RD 0.92 0.276

5 LEMAY HARMONY RD 0.88 0.265

6 TIMBERLINE RD HORSETOOTH RD 0.86 0.258

7 TIMBERLINE RD DRAKE RD 0.77 0.230

8 SHIELDS ST ELIZABETH ST 0.75 0.224

9 SHIELDS ST PLUM 0.73 0.219

10 CORBETT HARMONY RD * 0.72 0.216 Note: (*) refers to intersections that do not exist in table 29.

Table 29 Ranking of top 10 RLC candidates in Fort Collins based on potential for improvement in

relation to crash Frequency.

PFI

Rank Intersection Name Crash Freq Weighted

1 COLLEGE AV MONROE 20.0 0.250 2 LEMAY HARMONY RD 18.0 0.225 3 TIMBERLINE RD HORSETOOTH RD 15.8 0.198 4 COLLEGE AV TRILBY RD 14.6 0.183 5 COLLEGE AV HORSETOOTH RD * 13.9 0.174 6 TIMBERLINE RD DRAKE RD 12.5 0.157 7 SHIELDS ST ELIZABETH ST 12.2 0.152 8 SHIELDS ST MULBERRY ST 12.2 0.152 9 COLLEGE AV MULBERRY ST * 10.5 0.131

10 SHIELDS ST PLUM 9.6 0.120 Note: (*) refers to intersections that do not exist in table 28.

109

Figure 33 Fort Collins reported crashes in relation to annual average daily traffic

After running a regression analysis with an R-square = .60 and p-value that is below 0.05,

A graph was drawn as shown in figure 32 which reports how much the data of 3 years of

crashes varies around the fitted blue curve.

Table 30 shows top 10 RLC candidates from all 106 signalized intersections

studied in the city of Fort Collins that combine both of a high proportion of front to side

crashes and low proportion of rear end crashes.

Table 30 Ranking of top 10 RLC candidates in Fort Collins based on crash type.

Rank Intersection Front to Side Rate Weighted

1 COLLEGE AV TRILBY RD 0.81 0.050

2 SHIELDS ST PROSPECT RD 0.81 0.050

3 TIMBERLINE RD HORSETOOTH RD 0.75 0.047

4 COLLEGE AV HORSETOOTH RD 0.75 0.047

5 COLLEGE AV MONROE 0.67 0.041

6 COLLEGE AV BOARDWALK 0.67 0.041

7 TIMBERLINE RD DRAKE RD 0.64 0.040

8 COLLEGE AV SWALLOW 0.64 0.040

9 COLLEGE AV TROUTMAN 0.64 0.040

10 LEMAY DRAKE RD 0.61 0.038

110

Before moving to phase II of the red light camera site selection in Fort Collins

and after calculating the top 10 candidate intersections from each of the criteria show

earlier, it is essential to present the final top 10 RLC candidate intersections from all

criteria combined. Using the weighting formula described in the methodology chapter,

the final top 10 candidates (highlighted in grey) come as shown in table 31.

Table 31 Final top 10 RLC candidates in Fort Collins for all criteria in phase I.

Rank Intersection / Criteria CSL N-CSL PFI-Crash Freq PFI-Crash Rate Crash Types Total

1 College & Monroe 0.150 0.078 0.250 0.330 0.041 0.849

2 Timberline & Horsetooth Rd 0.147 0.085 0.198 0.258 0.047 0.735

3 Lemay & Harmony Rd 0.143 0.069 0.225 0.265 0.016 0.718

4 College & Tribly 0.078 0.055 0.183 0.276 0.050 0.642

5 Colleage & Horsetooth Rd 0.145 0.054 0.174 0.160 0.047 0.580

6 Shields & Plum 0.108 0.115 0.120 0.219 0.017 0.579

7 Timberline & Drake Rd 0.079 0.058 0.157 0.230 0.040 0.564

8 Shields & Mulberry St 0.041 0.038 0.152 0.277 0.031 0.538

9 Shields St & Elizabith St 0.051 0.038 0.152 0.224 0.022 0.488

10 Ziegler & Rock Creek 0.010 0.037 0.059 0.350 0.005 0.461

11 College Ave & Mulberry St 0.055 0.034 0.131 0.160 0.038 0.418

12 Broadwalk & Harmony 0.115 0.091 0.076 0.099 0.036 0.417

13 Corbett & Harmony Rd 0.031 0.036 0.113 0.216 0.010 0.406

14 Lemay & Drake Rd 0.048 0.043 0.103 0.153 0.038 0.384

15 Shield & Prospect 0.107 0.058 0.056 0.067 0.050 0.338

16 Shileds & Swallow 0.063 0.102 0.023 0.040 0.014 0.242

17 College & Prospect Rd 0.116 0.058 -0.003 -0.003 0.029 0.198

18 City park & Elizabeth 0.022 0.138 -0.002 -0.005 0.007 0.160

19 Lemay & Southridge 0.007 0.107 -0.003 -0.011 0.005 0.105

20 College & Broadwalk 0.066 0.077 -0.035 -0.044 0.041 0.105

21 College & Swallow 0.045 0.049 -0.030 -0.037 0.040 0.067

22 College & Troutman 0.037 0.046 -0.026 -0.034 0.040 0.063

23 Worthington & Drake 0.015 0.107 -0.019 -0.049 0.005 0.059

24 Sheilds & Raintree 0.046 0.121 -0.047 -0.076 0.007 0.052

25 Timberline Rd & Harmony Rd 0.084 0.054 -0.063 -0.063 0.012 0.025

26 Tradition & Hoursetooth 0.007 0.107 -0.034 -0.087 0.003 -0.003

27 Lemay & Robertson 0.007 0.200 -0.068 -0.144 0.000 -0.005

28 Shield & Rolland 0.015 0.120 -0.053 -0.109 0.003 -0.024

29 College & Drake 0.098 0.064 -0.143 -0.124 0.024 -0.082

Note: Intersections highlighted in yellow refer to current RLC location, while those in red refer to current RLC

locations.

Section II: Further Analysis and Field Investigation of

Phase II: From table 30 (Final top 10 RLC candidat

used to analyze these intersections further.

• Fluctuation of

Not applicable due to the unavailability of the type of vehicles data.

• Type of Vehicles

Not applicable due to the unavailability

• Economic Evaluation

Total Cost of RLC per year

Not applicable due to the unavailability of the average safety benefits data from the state

of Colorado.

Further Analysis and Field Investigation of Top 10 RLC Candidates in Fort

Collins

Fort Collins

From table 30 (Final top 10 RLC candidate intersections), six criteria

to analyze these intersections further.

Fluctuation of Crashes

. 100

x =

s =

Not applicable due to the unavailability of the type of vehicles data.

Type of Vehicles

•

Not applicable due to the unavailability of the type of vehicles data.

Economic Evaluation

per year + Total Revenue of RLC per year < Total Safety Benefits

Not applicable due to the unavailability of the average safety benefits data from the state

111

Candidates in Fort

e intersections), six criteria will be

Total Safety Benefits per year

Not applicable due to the unavailability of the average safety benefits data from the state

112

• Intersection Characteristics

Table 32 Intersection evaluation table (Fort Collins)

Intersection Characteristic Name Evaluation Points

Score (P/F)

Overall Score (out of 7)

College Ave & Monroe

Intersection Layout

Lane Width P

6

Lightening P

Channelization P

Signage P Yellow Change

Interval Meet ITE guidelines

P

Approach Speed Ave Speed ≤ Posted Speed F

Social Structure Criminal history and Income level P

Timberline & Horsetooth Rd

Intersection Layout

Lane Width P

7

Lightening P

Channelization P

Signage P Yellow Change

Interval Meet ITE guidelines

P

Approach Speed Ave Speed ≤ Posted Speed P

Social Structure Criminal history and Income level P

Lemay & Harmony Rd

Intersection Layout

Lane Width P

5

Lightening P

Channelization P

Signage P Yellow Change

Interval Meet ITE guidelines

P

Approach Speed Ave Speed ≤ Posted Speed F

Social Structure Criminal history and Income level F

College & Tribly

Intersection Layout

Lane Width P

6

Lightening P

Channelization P

Signage F Yellow Change

Interval Meet ITE guidelines

P

Approach Speed Ave Speed ≤ Posted Speed P

Social Structure Criminal history and Income level P

College Ave & Horsetooth Rd

Intersection Layout

Lane Width F

4

Lightening P

Channelization F

Signage P

Yellow Change Meet ITE guidelines P

113

Intersection Characteristic Name Evaluation Points

Score (P/F)

Overall Score (out of 7)

Interval

Approach Speed Ave Speed ≤ Posted Speed P

Social Structure Criminal history and Income level F

Shields St & Plum

Intersection Layout

Lane Width F

5

Lightening F

Channelization P

Signage P Yellow Change

Interval Meet ITE guidelines

P

Approach Speed Ave Speed ≤ Posted Speed P

Social Structure Criminal history and Income level P

Timberline & Drake Rd

Intersection Layout

Lane Width P

6

Lightening P

Channelization P

Signage P Yellow Change

Interval Meet ITE guidelines

P

Approach Speed Ave Speed ≤ Posted Speed F

Social Structure Criminal history and Income level P

Shields St & Mulberry St

Intersection Layout

Lane Width F

4

Lightening P

Channelization F

Signage P Yellow Change

Interval Meet ITE guidelines

P

Approach Speed Ave Speed ≤ Posted Speed P

Social Structure Criminal history and Income level F

Shields St & Elizabeth St

Intersection Layout

Lane Width P

5

Lightening F

Channelization P

Signage P Yellow Change

Interval Meet ITE guidelines

F

Approach Speed Ave Speed ≤ Posted Speed P

Social Structure Criminal history and Income level P

Ziegler & Rock Creek Intersection Layout

Lane Width P

5

Lightening P

Channelization P

Signage P

114

Intersection Characteristic Name Evaluation Points

Score (P/F)

Overall Score (out of 7)

Yellow Change Interval

Meet ITE guidelines F

Approach Speed Ave Speed ≤ Posted Speed F

Social Structure Criminal history and Income level P

Figure 34 College Ave & Monroe. (Google Maps)

115

Figure 35 Timberline Rd & Horsetooth Rd. (Google Maps)

Figure 36 Lemay & Harmony. (Google Maps)

116

Figure 37 College Ave & Tribly Rd. (Google Maps)

Figure 38 College Ave & Horsetooth Rd. (Google Maps)

117

Figure 39 S Shields St & W Plum St. (Google Maps)

Figure 40 Timberline Rd & Drake Rd. (Google Maps)

118

Figure 41 Shields St & Mulberry St. (Google Maps)

Figure 42 Shields St & Elizabeth St. (Google Maps)

119

Figure 43 Ziegler Rd & Rock Creek Dr. (Google Maps)

As a conclusion of the intersection characteristics field investigation (See table

32), 4 out of 10 intersections that have the highest score will be qualified to get RLC

installed since they passed most of the intersection characteristics, but still have red light

related crashes. Those intersections are:

1) S College Ave & W Monroe Dr.

2) S Timberline Rd & E Horsetooth Rd.

3) S Timberline Rd & E Drake Rd.

4) S College Ave & W Tribly Rd.

120

• Approach Determination.

Table 33 Number of at fault vehicles per approach (Fort Collins)

Number of at-fault vehicles/approach

Inter # Intersection EB WB NB SB TC

1 S College Ave & W Monroe Dr 16 13 47 35 111

2 S Timberline Rd & E Horsetooth Rd 11 31 17 41 100

3 S Timberline Rd & E Drake Rd 16 9 34 19 78

4 S College Ave & W Tribly Rd 7 12 46 17 82

Considering the fact that RLC is normally installed in one approach of the

intersection, it was recommended that RLC should be installed at Northbound of S

College Ave & W Monroe Dr, S College Ave & E Harmony Rd, S College Ave & W

Tribly Rd, and S Timberline Rd & E Drake Rd. An additional RLC to be installed at the

Southbound of S Timberline Rd & E Horsetooth Rd. This was determined given the

history of at fault vehicle crashes per approach of each of the intersections for the period

of three years. (Table 33)

• RLC Location

Below is a map with final RLC locations noting that they cannot be located within

3 miles of each other unless they are located in different directions. Although S

Timberline Rd & E Horsetooth Rd and S Timberline Rd & E Drake Rd are located within

3 miles distance, however, RLCs’ are recommended in two different directions, therefore,

two more RLCs’ are to be installed at both intersections. The intersections of S College

Ave & W Monroe Dr and S College Ave & W Tribly Rd should be installed with no

restrictions since they meet the installation conditions.

Final RLC locations in the city of Fort Collins are shown in the following map.

121

Figure 44 Final RLC locations (Fort Collins)

Section I: Analyses of RLC Sites

Phase I: From phase I of the methodology chapter, test of crash severity comes as the

first criterion. The following equation will be used to rank 309 signalized intersections

based on crash severity level using the

CSL

Tables 34 and 35

Severity Level (CSL) and the Normalized

locations studied in the city.

.

RLC Sites Selection for Denver

Denver

From phase I of the methodology chapter, test of crash severity comes as the

first criterion. The following equation will be used to rank 309 signalized intersections

based on crash severity level using the following equation:

CSL =

show the top 10 RLC candidate locations based on

Severity Level (CSL) and the Normalized-Crash Severity Level (N-CSL) from all 309

locations studied in the city.

122

From phase I of the methodology chapter, test of crash severity comes as the

first criterion. The following equation will be used to rank 309 signalized intersections

show the top 10 RLC candidate locations based on Crash

CSL) from all 309

123

Table 34 Ranking of top 10 RLC candidates in Denver based on normalized crash severity level

Rank Intersection Name N-CSL Weighted

1 W 44th Ave N Lowell Blvd * 25 0.150

2 E 28th Ave N York St * 25 0.150

3 W 26th Ave N Irving St * 20 0.120

4 N Quebec St E 26th Ave * 11 0.066

5 California St 16th St * 11 0.066

6 W 38th Ave N Irving St * 10.5 0.063

7 E 46th Ave N Clayton St * 9.78 0.059

8 N Sheridan Blvd W 46th Ave * 9.71 0.058

9 N Federal Blvd W 1st Ave * 9.62 0.058

10 Park Ave W Tremont Pl * 9.5 0.057 Note: (*) refers to intersections that do not exist in table 35.

Table 35 Ranking of top 10 RLC candidates in Denver based on normalized crash severity level

Rank Intersection Name CSL Weighted

1 W Colfax Ave N Kalamath St* 517 0.050

2 Leetsdale Dr S Quebec St* 472 0.046

3 S Monaco St Leetsdale Dr* 461 0.045

4 W Mississippi Ave S Platte River Dr* 428 0.041

5 E 6th Ave N Lincoln St* 422 0.041

6 S Federal Blvd W Alameda Ave* 418 0.040

7 N Colorado Blvd E Colfax Ave* 416 0.040

8 S University Blvd E 1st Ave* 393 0.038

9 S Federal Blvd W Florida Ave* 346 0.033

10 N Colorado Blvd E 14th Ave* 328 0.032 Note: Intersections highlighted in yellow refer to current RLC locations while (*) refers to intersections that do

not exist in table 34.

124

Tables 36 and 37 show the top 10 RLC candidate locations in the city of Denver

based on their potential for improvement in relation to crash rate and crash frequency.

Table 36 Ranking of top 10 RLC candidates in Fort Collins based on potential for improvement in

relation to crash rate.

PFI

Rank Intersection Name Crash Rate Weighted

1 E Alameda Ave Leetsdale Dr 41.46 0.350

2 E 18th Ave N Franklin St* 17.79 0.150

3 Leetsdale Dr S Oneida St* 12.66 0.107

4 W Colfax Ave N Kalamath St 10.16 0.086

5 N Colorado Blvd E 23rd Ave* 5.37 0.045

6 N Quebec St E 23rd Ave* 4.4 0.037

7 Leetsdale Dr S Quebec St* 4.06 0.034

8 E Colfax Ave N Logan St* 3.93 0.033

9 E Hampden Ave S Tamarac Dr* 3.67 0.031

10 W Evans Ave S Sheridan Blvd* 3.25 0.027 Note: (*) refers to intersections that do not exist in table 37. Table 37 Ranking of top 10 RLC candidates in Fort Collins based on potential for improvement in

relation to crash rate.

PFI Rank Intersection Name Crash Freq Weighted

1 W Colfax Ave N Kalamath St 39.6 0.400

2 S Monaco St Leetsdale Dr* 39.1 0.395

3 Leetsdale Dr S Quebec St 39.1 0.395

4 E 6th Ave N Lincoln St* 26.5 0.268

5 E Alameda Ave S Monaco St 23.8 0.240

6 N University Blvd E Evans Ave* 23.5 0.237

7 E Alameda Ave Leetsdale Dr 23.1 0.233

8 W Mississippi Ave S Platte River Dr* 23.1 0.233

9 N Colorado Blvd E Colfax Ave* 23 0.232

10 E 6th Ave N Colorado Blvd* 22.8 0.230 Note: Intersections highlighted in yellow refer to current RLC locations while (*) refers to intersections that do

not exist in table 36

125

Figure 45 Denver's reported crashes in relation to annual average daily traffic.

After running a regression analysis with an R-square = .2 and p-value that is well below

0.05, A graph was drawn as shown in figure 44 which reports how much the data of 3

years of crashes varies around the fitted blue curve.

Table 38 shows top 10 RLC candidates from all 309 signalized intersections

studied in the city of Denver that combine both of a high proportion of front to side

crashes and low proportion of rear end crashes.

Table 38 Ranking of top 10 RLC candidates in Denver based on crash type

Rank Intersection Name Front to Side Rate Weighted

1 W Mississippi Ave S Platte River Dr 2.33 0.050

2 N Colorado Blvd E Colfax Ave 2.00 0.043

3 W Colfax Ave N Kalamath St 1.93 0.041

4 E Alameda Ave S Monaco St 1.72 0.037

5 N Peoria St E 47th Ave 1.69 0.036

6 S Federal Blvd W Alameda Ave 1.66 0.036

7 S Colorado Blvd E Louisiana Ave 1.66 0.036

8 S Monaco St Leetsdale Dr 1.63 0.035

9 S University Blvd E 1st Ave 1.63 0.035

10 N Colorado Blvd E 3rd Ave 1.57 0.034

126

Before moving to phase II of the red light camera site selection in Denver and

after calculating the top 10 candidate intersections from each of the criteria show earlier,

it is essential to present the final top 10 RLC candidate intersections from all criteria

combined. Using the weighting formula described in the methodology chapter, the final

top 10 candidates (highlighted in grey) come to be as shown in table 39.

127

Table 39 Final top 10 RLC candidates in Denver for all criteria in phase I.

Rank Intersection CSL N-CSL PFI-Crash Freq PFI-Crash Rate Crash Types Total

1 E Alameda Ave Leetsdale Dr 0.021 0.017 0.233 0.350 0.022 0.644

2 W Colfax Ave N Kalamath St 0.050 0.023 0.400 0.086 0.041 0.600

3 Leetsdale Dr S Quebec St 0.046 0.019 0.395 0.034 0.029 0.523

4 S Monaco St Leetsdale Dr 0.045 0.018 0.395 0.021 0.035 0.513

5 E 6th Ave N Lincoln St 0.041 0.020 0.268 0.018 0.025 0.371

6 W Mississippi Ave S Platte River Dr 0.041 0.024 0.233 0.012 0.050 0.361

7 N Colorado Blvd E Colfax Ave 0.040 0.023 0.232 0.010 0.043 0.349

8 S Federal Blvd W Alameda Ave 0.040 0.025 0.222 0.013 0.036 0.336

9 E Alameda Ave S Monaco St 0.026 0.015 0.240 0.015 0.037 0.333

10 S University Blvd E Evans Ave 0.026 0.016 0.237 0.021 0.030 0.330

11 E 6th Ave N Colorado Blvd 0.026 0.016 0.230 0.017 0.029 0.318

12 N University Blvd E 1st Ave 0.038 0.025 0.188 0.010 0.035 0.296

13 E Hampden Ave S Tamarac Dr 0.029 0.025 0.178 0.031 0.028 0.291

14 N Colorado Blvd E 3rd Ave 0.026 0.018 0.189 0.013 0.034 0.280

15 N Peoria St E 47th Ave 0.032 0.022 0.177 0.010 0.036 0.277

16 Leetsdale Dr S Oneida St 0.012 0.016 0.124 0.107 0.017 0.275

17 S Colorado Blvd E Louisiana Ave 0.023 0.016 0.177 0.010 0.036 0.261

18 E 18th Ave N Franklin St 0.006 0.017 0.063 0.150 0.010 0.246

19 N Colorado Blvd E 14th Ave 0.032 0.024 0.160 0.009 0.015 0.239

20 W Evans Ave S Sheridan Blvd 0.024 0.027 0.124 0.027 0.028 0.231

21 N Colorado Blvd E 23rd Ave 0.015 0.020 0.113 0.045 0.005 0.198

22 S Federal Blvd W Florida Ave 0.033 0.032 0.102 0.006 0.017 0.191

23 E Colfax Ave N Logan St 0.011 0.016 0.091 0.033 0.006 0.156

128

Rank Intersection CSL N-CSL PFI-Crash Freq PFI-Crash Rate Crash Types Total

24 W 44th Ave N Lowell Blvd 0.022 0.150 -0.015 -0.006 0.002 0.153

25 N Quebec St E 23rd Ave 0.009 0.023 0.052 0.037 0.010 0.131

26 E 28th Ave N York St 0.005 0.150 -0.021 -0.022 0.000 0.112

27 W 26th Ave N Irving St 0.015 0.120 -0.025 -0.007 0.002 0.105

28 W 38th Ave N Irving St 0.018 0.063 0.002 0.000 0.007 0.090

29 E 46th Ave N Clayton St 0.009 0.059 -0.002 -0.002 0.002 0.066

30 Park Ave W Tremont Pl 0.006 0.057 -0.007 -0.008 0.002 0.050

31 California St 16th St 0.003 0.066 -0.030 -0.015 0.001 0.025

32 N Federal Blvd W 1st Ave 0.012 0.058 -0.078 -0.004 0.003 -0.010

33 N Quebec St E 26th Ave 0.006 0.066 -0.089 -0.006 0.001 -0.021

34 N Sheridan Blvd W 46th Ave 0.007 0.058 -0.085 -0.006 0.001 -0.025

Note: Intersections highlighted in red refer to current RLC locations while values highlighted in yellow refer to intersections that were ranked among top in that

specific criterion

Section II: Further Analysis and Field Investigation of

Denver

Phase II: From table 39 (Final top 10 RLC candidate intersection

used to analyze these intersections further.

• Fluctuation of

Not applicable due to the unavailability of the type of

• Type of Vehicles

Not applicable due to the unavailability of the type of vehicles data.

• Economic Evaluation

Total Cost of RLC per year

Not applicable due to the

of Colorado.

Further Analysis and Field Investigation of Top 10 RLC Candidates in

Denver

(Final top 10 RLC candidate intersections), six criterions will be

to analyze these intersections further.

Fluctuation of Crashes

. 100

x =

s =

Not applicable due to the unavailability of the type of vehicles data.

Type of Vehicles

Not applicable due to the unavailability of the type of vehicles data.

Economic Evaluation

per year + Total Revenue of RLC per year < Total Safety Benefits

Not applicable due to the unavailability of the average safety benefits data from in the state

129

Candidates in

criterions will be

Total Safety Benefits per year

unavailability of the average safety benefits data from in the state

130

• Intersection Characteristics

Table 40 Intersection evaluation table (Denver)

Intersection Characteristic

Name Evaluation Points Score (P/F)

Overall Score (out of 7)

E Alameda Ave & Leetsdale Dr

Intersection Layout

Lane Width F

5

Lightening F

Channelization P

Signage P Yellow Change

Interval Meet ITE guidelines

P

Approach Speed Ave Speed ≤ Posted Speed P

Social Structure Criminal history and Income level P

W Colfax Ave & N Kalamath St

Intersection Layout

Lane Width F

5

Lightening F

Channelization P

Signage P Yellow Change

Interval Meet ITE guidelines

P

Approach Speed Ave Speed ≤ Posted Speed P

Social Structure Criminal history and Income level P

Leetsdale Dr & S Quebec St

Intersection Layout

Lane Width P

4

Lightening P

Channelization P

Signage P Yellow Change

Interval Meet ITE guidelines

F

Approach Speed Ave Speed ≤ Posted Speed F

Social Structure Criminal history and Income level F

S Monaco St & Leetsdale Dr

Intersection Layout

Lane Width P

7

Lightening P

Channelization P

Signage P Yellow Change

Interval Meet ITE guidelines

P

Approach Speed Ave Speed ≤ Posted Speed P

Social Structure Criminal history and Income level P

E 6th Ave & N Lincoln St

Intersection Layout

Lane Width P

5

Lightening P

Channelization P

Signage P

Yellow Change Meet ITE guidelines F

131

Intersection Characteristic Name Evaluation Points

Score (P/F)

Overall Score (out of 7)

Interval

Approach Speed Ave Speed ≤ Posted Speed F

Social Structure Criminal history and Income level P

W Mississippi Ave & S Platte River Dr

Intersection Layout

Lane Width F

4

Lightening F

Channelization P

Signage F Yellow Change

Interval Meet ITE guidelines

P

Approach Speed Ave Speed ≤ Posted Speed P

Social Structure Criminal history and Income level P

N Colorado Blvd & E Colfax Ave

Intersection Layout

Lane Width P

6

Lightening P

Channelization P

Signage F Yellow Change

Interval Meet ITE guidelines

P

Approach Speed Ave Speed ≤ Posted Speed P

Social Structure Criminal history and Income level P

S Federal Blvd & W Alameda Ave

Intersection Layout

Lane Width P

5

Lightening P

Channelization P

Signage P Yellow Change

Interval Meet ITE guidelines

P

Approach Speed Ave Speed ≤ Posted Speed F

Social Structure Criminal history and Income level F

E Alameda Ave & S Monaco St

Intersection Layout

Lane Width P

5

Lightening P

Channelization P

Signage P Yellow Change

Interval Meet ITE guidelines

F

Approach Speed Ave Speed ≤ Posted Speed F

Social Structure Criminal history and Income level P

S University Blvd & E Evans Ave

Intersection Layout

Lane Width P

6

Lightening P

Channelization P

Signage P

132

Intersection Characteristic Name Evaluation Points

Score (P/F)

Overall Score (out of 7)

Yellow Change Interval

Meet ITE guidelines F

Approach Speed Ave Speed ≤ Posted Speed P

Social Structure Criminal history and Income level P

Figure 46 E Alameda Ave & Leetsdale Dr. (Google Maps)

133

Figure 47 W Colfax Ave & N Kalamath St. (Google Maps)

Figure 48 Leetsdale Dr & Quebec St. (Google Maps)

134

Figure 49 S Monaco St & Leetsdale Dr. (Google Maps)

Figure 50 E 6th Ave & N Lincoln Blvd. (Google Maps)

135

Figure 51 W Mississippi Ave & S Platte River Dr. (Google Maps)

Figure 52 N Colorado Blvd & E Colfax Ave. (Google Maps)

136

Figure 53 S Federal Blvd & W Alameda Ave. (Google Maps)

Figure 54 E Alameda Ave & S Monoco St (Google Maps)

137

Figure 55 S University Blvd & E Evans Ave. (Google Maps)

As a conclusion of the intersection characteristics field investigation (See table 40),

3 out of 10 intersections that have the highest score will be qualified to get RLC installed

since they passed most of the intersection characteristics, but still have red light related

crashes. Those intersections are:

1) S Monaco & Leetsdale Dr.

2) N Colorado Blvd & E Colfax Ave.

3) S University Blvd & E Evans Ave.

138

• Approach Determination.

Table 41 Number of at fault vehicles per approach (Denver)

Number of at-fault vehicles/approach

Inter # Intersection EB WB NB SB TC

1 S Monaco St Leetsdale Dr 35 33 46 40 154

2 N Colorado Blvd E Colfax Ave 41 34 76 55 206

3 S University Blvd E Evans Blvd 39 29 19 12 99

Considering the fact that RLC is normally installed in one approach of the

intersection, it was recommended that RLC should be installed at the southbound approach

of S Monaco & Leetsdale Dr, Northbound approach of N Colorado Blvd & E Colfax Ave,

and Eastbound approach of S University Blvd & E Evans Blvd. This was determined

given the history of at fault crashes per approach of each of the intersections for the period

of three years. (Table 41)

• RLC Location

Below is a map with final RLC locations noting that they cannot be located within

3 miles of each other unless they are located in different directions. According to

intersection characteristics and number of crashes per approach, RLCs’ are recommended

to be installed in the following locations: The intersections of the southbound approach of

S Monaco & Leetsdale Dr, Northbound approach of N Colorado Blvd & E Colfax Ave,

and Westbound approach of S University Blvd & E Evans Blvd are located in a distance of

more than 3 miles and their RLC locations are recommended in different directions and

therefore they still can be installed in all three locations. Final RLC locations in the city of

Denver are shown in the following map:

139

Figure 56 Final RLC locations (Denver)

140

Analysis of Denver’s RLC Systems Before and After Installation

Some of before RLC installation data was available for one of the case studies, which

is Denver. Data was combined with the recent 3 years data used in the RLC site

selection analysis and a comparison was conducted at three points (Total crashes,

Front to side crashes, and rear end crashes). The analysis was limited to the four

current RLC locations in order to measure RLC effectiveness since installation in

summer 2008. (Osher, 2010)

Table 42 Total crashes by year in current RLC locations in Denver.

Intersection / TC 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 (RLC Started) 2009 2010-2012

E 6th Ave & N Lincoln St 70 65 64 66 46 39 (42.9%) 37.7

N Qubic St & E 36th Ave 26 38 18 21 31 26 (36.7%) 13.3

W 8th Ave & N Speer Blvd 37 50 47 32 27 26 (6.3%) 30.0

N Kalamath St & W 6th Ave 40 28 20 18 20 20 (35%) 11.7

Note: 2005 data was not fully reported and therefore was not included.

Figure 57 Trend of total crashes before and after the year of RLC installation at four signalized

intersections in Denver

When comparing total red light related crashes reported during the period of 2010-

2012 to the year of 2007 (the year before RLC installation), it looks that there is

always a decrease of more than 35% except W 8th Ave & N Speer Blvd which reports

around 6% decrease only. (See table 42 & Figure 56)

141

Table 43 Front to side type of crashes by year in current RLC locations in Denver.

Intersection / Front to side 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 (RLC Started) 2009 2010-2012

E 6th Ave & N Lincoln St 41 30 27 30 11 8 (57.7%) 12.7

N Qubic St & E 36th Ave 11 13 8 8 9 10 (28.8%) 5.7

W 8th Ave & N Speer Blvd 21 25 21 21 13 13 (33.4%) 14.0

N Kalamath St & W 6th Ave 13 11 5 5 5 4 (54%) 2.3

Note: 2005 data was not fully reported and therefore was not included.

Figure 58 Trend of front to side type of crashes before and after the year of RLC installation at four

signalized intersections in Denver

When comparing front to side type of crashes reported during the period of 2010-

2012 to the year of 2007 (the year before RLC installation), results show a decrease in

front to side crashes (with respect to total volume) after installation of RLC at all four

locations which is very consistent with the outcomes from RLC studies that measures

effectiveness in term of crash types. (See Table 43 & Figure 57)

Table 44 Rear end type of crashes by year in current RLC locations in Denver.

Intersection / Rear end 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 (RLC Started) 2009 2010-2012

E 6th Ave & N Lincoln St 6 11 9 11 7 7 14.3

N Qubic St & E 36th Ave 4 9 3 4 9 5 5.3

W 8th Ave & N Speer Blvd 7 4 6 10 8 5 10.3

N Kalamath St & W 6th Ave 5 4 2 1 4 3 1.7

Note: 2005 data was not fully reported and therefore was not included.

142

Figure 59 Trend of rear end type of crashes before and after the year of RLC installation at four signalized

intersections in Denver

On the other hand, when comparing rear end type of crashes reported during the

period of 2010-2012 to the year of 2007 (the year before RLC installation), results

show an increase in rear end crashes (with respect to total volume) after installation

of RLC at all 4 locations which is very consistent with the outcomes from RLC studies

that measures effectiveness in term of crash types. (See Table 44 & Figure 58)

From past research and the results of the evaluations conducted in this dissertation,

the installation of RLCs generally is normally associates with intersections with high

collision rate or traffic violations, while there are several criteria that should be considered

before selection is made. This research used criteria that represent both comprehensiveness

and accessibility, and were divided into two phases to ensure the quality of the final

selections. In phase I, all signalized intersections in a city were included and tested using

three of the major criteria which are usually associated with RLC studies, those are crash

severity (normalized and non-normalized), potential for improvement based on crash rate

and crash frequency, and finally crash types. All were weighted using proportionality to

obtain relative weights equation (which was determine by the city engineers). The results

of the statistical analysis (top 10 from phase I) were moved to phase II for further analysis

143

that contain both statistical criteria (the economic evaluation, type of vehicles, and

fluctuation of crashes), besides three other field investigation criteria (intersection

characteristics, approach determination, and final red light camera locations).

The study took a practical path when it implemented the methodology on three of

the major cities in the state of Colorado, those are Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, and

Denver and concluded findings of RLC candidate sites that are problematic and require a

safety countermeasure according to each city engineers.

More data for Denver was available to conduct more analysis that could enhance

the final research findings. Data includes total crashes, and crash types (front to side, and

rear end) reported before four years of RLC installation (which was in summer of 2008).

Results were consistent with findings from most RLC studies in all three compared points.

Recommendations and Conclusions

Generally, when reviewing the study, several recommendations and conclusions

can be derived in the following bullets:

- This study grouped most of the criteria that were known to be effective when

selecting RLC locations as well as additional criteria in two phases of analysis

processes.

- Besides using several criteria, the study kept one of its main objectives, which

is basing its criteria on accessible data.

- The study methodology was tested in three different cities with different

characteristics, so it ensures diversity.

144

- The cases studies were chosen to target cities with and without RLC systems to

compare final results (RLC candidates) to existing RLC locations.

- Benefit of performing relative weight at the end of phase I is quite noticeable

when looking at intersections that are among top 10 in a certain criterion, but

are not in the final top 10 candidates.

- Additionally, total weighted score at some intersections was reduced by

negative PFI values (These locations reporting negative PFI are indicating no

potential for improvement in relation to crash rate or crash frequency). Thus, it

provides more accurate results.

- It is noticeable that some intersections were among top 10 in a specific criterion,

but it was far from the final top 10 for all criteria combined. This is basically

due to the original weight determined by the city in the first place.

- The level of importance the city considers for each criterion in phase I by

weighting each of them have a significant impact on the final top 10. This is a

plus because it is always believed that the city has a chance to participate and

provide inputs as oppose to leave it all to the consultant or the operator.

- Colorado Springs was one of the cities that has no RLC system under operation,

however, the final locations determined by the study were examined by the city

engineer Andy Richter who quoted:

“Yes, the locations you have listed have been problematic for us for many years. We are starting to install flashing yellow beacons with a sign stating that the signal is about to change to red when flashing. Basically the vehicles will not make it on green. We are trying this as an alternative to see if we can reduce red light running. We will see if it works. CDOT has done the very same thing on state highways where the speeds are much higher. Take care Mansour and thank you for the results of the locations”.

145

This was a perfect indication of the criteria and processes chosen when

selecting RLC locations.

- In Fort Collins, RLC candidate locations were all recommended in the same

corridor of the current RLC locations, which indicates no spillover effect of

current RLC locations. It might also be the learning curve that drivers have

become familiar with the area, especially when knowing that the current two

locations were installed back in 1997 and 2006.

- In Denver, it was surprisingly derived that E 6th Ave & N Lincoln St is among

the final top 10 of candidate locations concluded from phase I despite the fact

that it is one of the current RLC locations and has been under operation since

the summer of 2008. However, it was not recommended eventually to receive a

RLC due to its failure to pass the field investigation (Failed in average speed &

yellow phase). This pretty much explains the reason why E 6th Ave & N

Lincoln St has not had very successful results compared to the other three

current RLC locations.

- During one of my frequent visits to Anderson Academic Commons at

University of Denver, I noticed police and ambulance vehicles forcing traffic

into certain directions and arranging pedestrians crossing the intersections of S

University Blvd & E Evans Ave. After I asked one of the police officers around

I was told that a red light runner hit a bicyclist who unfortunately passed away

at the same moment. Later on during my analysis of Denver intersections, the

intersection of S University Blvd & E Evans Ave came to be one of the top 10

candidates concluded from phase I, and it passed all the filed investigation

146

conducted in phase II except that it 1.5s less than the minimum yellow phase

timing required by ITE. Eventually, S University Blvd & E Evans Ave was

recommended as one of the RLC candidates.

Figure 60 City of Denver warns drivers to drive safely as they approach the intersection of S University Blvd & E Evans Ave.

- Data was a major obstacle especially when considering the nature of the subject

and therefore, some of phase II criteria were not included in the analysis and

thus not included in the final results.

- As indicated earlier, all intersections of the city were included with exception to

those with no data available. Case studies like Fort Collins and Denver where

RLC system currently exists; yellow highlighting was used in all of the analysis

tables to identify these current locations and make comparison to other

locations easily.

147

- Although RLC’s before and after analysis in Denver shows overall consistency

with findings from other RLC studies, there are still some points that worth

further investigation. For instance, intersections of W N Qubic St & E 36th

Ave and N Kalamath St & W 6th Ave are not shown significant decrease after

RLC installation in terms of number of crashes (See table 44), and therefore a

question would be why the city chose to make a big investment (up to 40K a

month) and install RLC at these locations.

- When referring to table 44, it was very interesting to see that number of rear

end crashes were in fact reduced in the year of 2009 (just one year of

installation), however the number increased again as most studies concluded in

the years after. This might be interpreted by the term “learning curve” where

drivers gain more awareness of these RLC locations as time passed and get to

slam on their breaks as they approach these sites.

- In Fort Collins, before RLC installation data was not available for the two RLC

intersections S College Ave & E Drake Rd (installed back in 1997) and S

Timberline Rd & Harmony Dr (Installed back in 2006), however, RLC top 10

candidates recommended by this study did not include any of these two

locations. In fact, none of them were recommended under any of the criteria

studied and there were always ranked down the list of the 106 signalized

intersections studied. This is an indication of an effective RLC system

experience in the city of Fort Collins that worth considering as an ideal example

for any future studies.

148

- This last bullet concluded that Fort Collins RLC system experience is good

example according to this study results, however, it is also important to know

that the city did not experience that immediately at the intersection of S College

Ave & E Drake Rd. A media report published back in 2005 confirmed that the

city has increased the yellow time interval for one second, and the intersection

has experience dramatic drops since then. In few months after the change and

for two months of comparison, crashes were reduced by 58% while citations

dropped by 63%. (BENSON, 2005)

- From the literature review conducted in this study which mostly based on

studies and researches available from Transportation Research Board (TRB), it

is obvious that majority of the findings agree that RLC systems decrease total

red light related crashes, front to side crashes, and increase rear end ones. In

the other hand, there are still some different findings that are usually biased by

the level of analysis when comparing to the ones available at TRB. For

instance, a speaker from New Jersey in a report published by NBC news says

front to side crashes increased 400%, which is a finding that does not comply

with any of the studies I have reviewed. It can only be possible if the speaker

was referring a particular intersection(s) where other traffic signal changes were

made and there were very few front to side crashes there previously so an

increase from 1 to 4 is 400%, or there was something wrong with the selecting

process of these RLC locations at the first place (NBC news, 2014)

- Finally, below is a summary of the steps needed to perform the red light camera

sites selection criteria

methodology chapter of this dissertation:

� Phase I (includes all intersections in a given jurisdiction):

1) Normalized c

2) Crash severity level

3) Potential for improvement in relation to

Annual Crash Rate

4) Potential for improvement in relation to crash frequency

5) Crash types

6) Weighting for all criteria

Final outcome is a list that contains final top 10 RLC candidates.

� Phase II (includes the final top 10 RLC candidates)

1) Fluctuation of crashes

Finally, below is a summary of the steps needed to perform the red light camera

sites selection criteria including the equations indicated in details via

methodology chapter of this dissertation:

Phase I (includes all intersections in a given jurisdiction):

Normalized crash severity level

rash severity level

Potential for improvement in relation to crash rate

PFI in relation to Crash Rate (Crash/ Movement) =

Annual Crash Rate per intersection – Estimated Annual Crashes per intersection

Potential for improvement in relation to crash frequency

PFI in relation to Crash Frequency (Crash/ Year) =

Crash types

Weighting for all criteria

Final outcome is a list that contains final top 10 RLC candidates.

Phase II (includes the final top 10 RLC candidates)

Fluctuation of crashes

. 100

149

Finally, below is a summary of the steps needed to perform the red light camera

details via the

PFI in relation to Crash Rate (Crash/ Movement) =

per intersection

2) Type of vehicles

3) Economic

Total Cost of RLC

4) Intersection characteristics

Analysis of four major characteristics as follows:

5) Approach determination

6) Red light camera locations

Not in same traffic travel direction unless it more than 3

Type of vehicles

Economic evaluation

per year + Total Revenue of RLC per year < Total Safety Benefits

Intersection characteristics

Analysis of four major characteristics as follows:

Intersection Layout.

Approach Speed.

Yellow Phase Interval.

Social Structure.

Approach determination

Direction of At-Fault vehicles

Red light camera locations

in same traffic travel direction unless it more than 3 miles away from a RLC

150

Total Safety Benefits per year

from a RLC

151

WORKS CITED

Colorado Department of Transportation. (2000). CDOT. Standard Plans - M & S

Standards,.

Wilson C, W. C. (2010).

Wilson, C. (2007). Signing for enforcement and compliance – are we informing the driver?. International Conference on Intelligent Transport Systems. Birmingham UK.

World Health Organization. (2010). "World report on road traffic injury prevention". WHO.

Yang, C. Y., & Najm, W. G. (2006). . Analysis of Red Light Violation Data Collected from Intersections Equipped with Red Light Photo Enforcement Cameras. Volpe National

Transportation Systems Center; Research and Innovative Technology

Administration; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Administration, F. H. (2005). SAFETY EVALUATION OF RED-LIGHT CAMERAS--EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.

ALTurki, M. (2013). Determining Criteria for Selecting Red Light Camera Locations. Denver.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).

(2001). A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.

Budd, L., Scully, J., & Newstead, S. (2011). Evaluation of the crash effects of Victoria''s fixed digital speed and red light cameras. Monash University.

Bailly, A. (1998). Intelligent Transportation Systems: Real World Benefits. FHA.

BENSON, M. (2005). Media Report: Fort Collins, Colorado Red Light Cameras . The

Coloradoan.

Bochner, B., & Walden, T. (2010). Effectiveness of Red Light Cameras . ITE Journal.

Brodbeck, T. (2012, JUNE 11). Red light cameras about safety? Really? WINNIPEG SUN .

Colorado Springs Traffic Engineering Office. (2011). Crash Severity.

Everitt. (2003). The Cambridge Dictionary of Statistics.

152

Elmitiny, N., & Radwan, E. (2008). Issues Related to Red-Light Camera Enforcement Systems. ITE Journal, Volume 78, Issue 7, 2008, pp 32, 37-39 . ITE Journal.

Erke, A. (2009). Red light for red-light cameras?: A meta-analysis of the effects of red-light cameras on crashes.

Dahnke, R. A., Stevenson, B. C., Stein, R. M., & Lomax, T. (2008). Evaluation of the City of Houston Digital Automated Red Light Camera Program . Houston.

de Leur, P., & Milner, M. (2011). . Site Selection Process and Methodology for Deployment of Intersection Safety Cameras in British Columbia, Canada. . Journal of

Transportation Research Board.

Denver Traffic Engineering Office. (2012). Weighting criteria for phase I. Denver.

Fang, L. (2012, June 5). Retrieved from Police Unions, For-Profit Traffic Light

Companies Lobby To Set Up Red Light Cameras For Revenue Not Public Safety:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Police-Unions-For-Profit-by-Lee-Fang-

120605-187.html

Federal Highway Administration. (2012). Proven Safety Countermeasures. FHA.

Federal Highway Administration. (2005). Safety Evaluation of Red Light Cameras.

Federal Highway Administration’s Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program

Office. (2000). A Summary of Vehicle Detection and Surveillance Technologies used in Intelligent Transportation Systems. Retrieved from

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tvtw/vdstits.pdf

Fitzsimmons, E. J., Hallmark, S. L., McDonald, T. J., Orellana, M., Matulac, D., &

Pawlovich, M. (2008). The Use of Statistical Evaluations to Investigate the Effectiveness of Iowa’s Automated Red Light Running Programs. ITE 2008

Technical Conference and Exhibit.

Fitzsimmons, E. J., Hallmark, S. L., Orellana, M., McDonald, T., & Matulac, D. (2009).

Investigation of Violation Reduction at Intersection Approaches with Automated Red Light Running Enforcement Cameras in Clive, Iowa, Using a Cross-Sectional Analysis. . Journal of Transportation Engineering.

Fleck. J, S. B. (1999). Can we make red light runners stop? Red light photo enforcement in San Francisco. San Francisco Dept. of Parking and Traffic , SF.

Fort Collins Traffic Engineering Office. (2012). Weighting for Phase I Criteria.

153

Garber, N. J., Miller, J. S., Abel, R. E., Eslambolchi, S., & Korukonda, S. K. (2007). The Impact of Red Light Cameras (Photo-Red Enforcement) on Crashes in Virginia. Virginia DOT.

Garder, P. E. (2006). Traffic Conflict Studies Before and After Introduction of Red-Light Running Photo Enforcement in Maine. University of Maine/ New England

Univiersity Transportation Center.

Garrett, J. (2011, 8 27). Red Light Cameras: An Endangered Species? Retrieved from

Garrett On The Road: http://jerrygarrett.wordpress.com/2011/08/27/red-light-

cameras-an-endangered-species/

Gatsometer. (2010). History.

Google Maps. (n.d.). USA map 2012. Retrieved from https://maps.google.com/

Grays Harbor County. (1981). Infraction Procedures. Retrieved from

http://www.co.grays-harbor.wa.us/info/judicial/infractions.html

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. (2010). Red Light Cameras. Insurance

Institute for Highway Safety.

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. (2010). Red Light Cameras.

IMBERGER, K. T. (2003). GUIDELINES FOR SETTING-UP AND OPERATION OF SIGNALISED INTERSECTIONS WITH RED LIGHT CAMERAS. Sydney, Australia: ROADS

AND TRAFFIC AUTHORITY (RTA).

Hunter, C. (2003). RED LIGHT RUNNING IN RHODE ISLAND. Kingston: University of

Rhode Island.

Hummer, J. E., & Cunningham, C. M. (2010). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Red Light Running Camera Enforcement in Raleigh NC. Journal of Transportation Safety.

Hadayeghi, A., Malone, B., Suggett, J. J., & Reid, J. (2007). Identification of Intersections with Promise for Red Light Camera Safety Improvement: Application of Generalized Estimating Equations and Empirical Bayes. . Journal of Transportation Research

Board.

Hallmark, S., Orellana, M., Fitzsimmons, E. J., McDonald, T., & Matulac, D. (2010). Red Light Running in Iowa: Automated Enforcement Program Evaluation with Bayesian Analysis. Transportation Research Board.

Helai, H., Chor, C. H., & Haque, M. M. (2008). Severity of driver injury and vehicle damage in traffic crashes at intersections: A Bayesian hierarchical analysis.

154

Hillier, W., Ronczka, J., & Schnerring, F. (1993). An Evaluation of Red Light Cameras in Sydney.

Hobeika, A., & Yaungyai, N. (2006). Evaluation Update of the Red Light Camera Program in Fairfax County, VA. .

Hockaday, S. (1991). Evaluation of Image Processing Technology for Applications in Highway Operations Final Report. California Polytechnical State University .

Karr, A. (1999). MOST PEOPLE SURVEYED FEAR RED-LIGHT RUNNERS. . Traffic

Safety (Chicago).

Kell, J. a. (1990). Traffic Detector Handbook, Second Edition. FHA. US Dept. of

Transportation.

Klein, L. A. (1997). Millimeter-Wave and Infrared Multisensor Design and Signal Processing. MA.

Klein, L. A. (1999). Final Report: Mobile Surveillance and Wireless Communication Systems Field Operational Test - Vol. 2: FOT Objectives, Organization, System Design, Results, Conclusions, and Recommendations. University of California.

Ko, M. G. (2013). Effectiveness and Site Selection Criteria for Red Light Camera Systems. Texas.

Lowe, D. (2006). The Transport Manager's and Operater Handbook.

LOCATOR, H. T. (n.d.). Colorado Maps. Retrieved from

Colorado.hometownlocator.com

National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances. (2000). Uniform Vehicle Code. NCUTLO.

National Safety Council. (2000). NSC.

National Safety Council. (2009). Speeding. Retrieved from

http://www.nsc.org/safety_road/DriverSafety/Pages/Speeding.aspx

NBC news. (2014, March 8th). NBC news. Retrieved March 18th, 2014, from

http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/critics-stop-traffic-cameras-n48031

Newman, E. E. (2010). Yellow Signal Timing - Lessons Learned from a Red Light Camera Program. ITE Annual Meeting and Exhibit.

155

Nicholas J. Garber, L. A. (2015). Traffic Highway Engineering. Department of Civil

Engineering University of Virginia. PWS.

NHCRP. (2003). Impact of Red Light Camera Enforcement on Crash Experience.

Magazines, H. Time recording camera for trapping motorists.

Maps, A. (n.d.). Boulder Colorado. Retrieved from

www.aaccessmaps.com/show/map/us/co/boulder

Martinez, K. L., & Porter, B. E. (2006). Characterizing Red Light Runners Following Implementation of a Photo Enforcement Program.

Mccartt, A. T. (2012). Attitudes Toward Red Light Camera Enforcement in Cities With Camera Programs.

McCartt, A. T., & Hu, W. (2013). . Effects of Red Light Camera Enforcement on Red Light Violations in Arlington County, Virginia. Insurance Institute of Highway Safety.

McGee, H. W., & Eccles, K. A. (2006). THE IMPACT OF RED-LIGHT CAMERA ENFORCEMENT ON CRASH EXPERIENCE. ITE Journal.

Osher, C. N. (2010, 02 26). Denver's red-light cameras no flash in pan.

Qu, T. (2003). INVESTIGATION AND OPTIMIZATION OF MOBILE SOURCE EMISSION MODELING METHODS. IN: COMPENDIUM: PAPERS ON ADVANCED SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS. Texas Transportation Institute; Southwest Region

University Transportation Center.

Subramanian, R. (2009). Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes as a Leading Cause of Death in the United States. Retrieved from http://www.nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811620.pdf

Suggett, J. M., Malone, B., & Borchuk, G. (2005). Selecting Candidate Locations for Red Light Cameras. Annual Conference of the Transportation Association of Canada.

Shin, K., & Washington, S. P. (2007). The Impact of red light cameras on safety in Arizona.

Railroad Crossing Tickets. (2011). Retrieved from

http://blog.photoenforced.com/2011/03/railroad-crossing-tickets.html

Reynolds, G. H. (2006). Big Brother is Ticketing You. (1998). Red Light Runners, Driver/Education.

156

Retting, R. A. (2002). REDUCTIONS IN INJURY CRASHES ASSOCIATED WITH RED LIGHT CAMERA ENFORCEMENT IN OXNARD, CALIFORNIA. Washington DC:

Transportation Research Board.

Retting, R. A., & Williams, A. F. (1996). CHARACTERISTICS OF RED LIGHT VIOLATORS: RESULTS OF A FIELD INVESTIGATION. Journal of Safety Research.

Road Safety. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.studymode.com/essays/Raod-

Safety-512570.html

Tucker, N. (2009, Nov 5). (The Washington Post) Retrieved from Controversial

speed cameras cause gear-grinding among irked drivers: from

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

dyn/content/article/2009/11/04/AR2009110404747.html

Tarko, A. P., & Reddy, N. (2003). EVALUATION OF SAFETY ENFORCEMENT ON CHANGING DRIVER BEHAVIOR - RUNS ON RED. Purdue University/ Indiana

Department of Transportation/ FHA.

The U.S. Department of Transportation. (2010, 12). A Summary of Highway Provisions in SAFETEA-LU. Retrieved from Studymode.com:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/summary.htm

The U.S. Department of Transportation. (1998). Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. Retrieved from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/sumover.htm

The National Cooperative Highway Research Program. (2003).

The National Tranportation Library. (1991). Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 – Summary. Retrieved from http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/ste.html

157

APPENDIX Table 45 Analysis of Colorado Springs intersections based on crash severity level and normalized crash severity level.

Inter # Intersection Name

07-09

Total

07-09

Injury

07-09

Fatal

07-09

PDO N-CSL CSL

1 I-25/W CIMARRON ST 109 8 0 101 1.66 181

2 E WOODMEN RD/I-25 204 3 0 201 1.13 231

3 HY-115/LAKE AV 25 1 0 24 1.36 34

4 E PLATTE AV/N ACADEMY BL 106 8 2 96 3.55 376

5 I-25/W GARDEN OF THE GODS RD 136 8 0 128 1.53 208

6 I-25/S CIRCLE DR 70 4 0 66 1.51 106

7 I-25/S NEVADA AV 90 11 0 79 2.1 189

8 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/N UNION BL 89 1 0 88 1.1 98

9 I-25/W UINTAH ST 78 4 0 74 1.46 114

10 I-25/W BIJOU ST 70 8 0 62 2.03 142

11 I-25/S TEJON ST 50 3 0 47 1.54 77

12 HY-24 BYP/I-25 38 2 0 36 1.47 56

13 I-25/W FILLMORE ST 109 6 0 103 1.5 163

14 I-25/N NEVADA AV 48 1 0 47 1.19 57

15 BARNES RD/TUTT BL 30 4 1 25 5.5 165

16 BRIARGATE PY/N POWERS BL 60 22 2 36 7.6 456

17 MILTON E PROBY PY/S POWERS BL 48 4 1 43 3.81 183

18 E BIJOU ST/N ACADEMY BL 58 11 1 46 4.41 256

19 BARNES RD/ORO BLANCO DR 35 1 1 33 4.09 143

20 N POWERS BL/OLD RANCH RD 39 15 0 24 4.46 174

21 BARNES RD/N POWERS BL 102 8 0 94 1.71 174

22 S 21ST ST/W CIMARRON ST 27 2 0 25 1.67 45

23 MAIZELAND RD/N ACADEMY BL 69 8 2 59 4.91 339

24 AIRPORT RD/S ACADEMY BL 100 13 6 81 8.11 811

25 PRINTERS PY/S PARKSIDE DR 23 1 0 22 1.39 32

158

Inter # Intersection Name

07-09

Total

07-09

Injury

07-09

Fatal

07-09

PDO N-CSL CSL

26 E PLATTE AV/N UNION BL 62 9 0 53 2.31 143

27 N POWERS BL/STETSON HILLS BL 83 5 1 77 2.73 227

28 E PORTAL DR/N ACADEMY BL 43 3 0 40 1.63 70

29 E PIKES PEAK AV/N UNION BL 30 6 0 24 2.8 84

30 E PLATTE AV/N CIRCLE DR 64 4 0 60 1.56 100

31 E WOODMEN RD/LEXINGTON DR 34 3 0 31 1.79 61

32 DUBLIN BL/N POWERS BL 59 5 3 51 6.8 401

33 N POWERS BL/N UNION BL 46 14 0 32 3.74 172

34 BLOOMINGTON ST/N CAREFREE CR 21 3 0 18 2.29 48

35 DRENNAN RD/S ACADEMY BL 35 9 2 24 8.97 314

36 AIRPORT RD/S POWERS BL 71 4 1 66 2.9 206

37 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/RANGEWOOD DR 31 2 0 29 1.58 49

38 ASTROZON BL/S ACADEMY BL 38 8 0 30 2.89 110

39 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/N ACADEMY BL 84 7 1 76 2.93 246

40 E UINTAH ST/N CASCADE AV 29 2 2 25 8.45 245

41 N MURRAY BL/PALMER PARK BL 29 0 0 29 1 29

42 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/BARNES RD 47 0 1 46 3.11 146

43 E PLATTE AV/N WAHSATCH AV 35 3 0 32 1.77 62

44 GALLEY RD/N ACADEMY BL 49 2 0 47 1.37 67

45 N CAREFREE CR/N POWERS BL 86 11 1 74 3.3 284

46 HANCOCK EY/S ACADEMY BL 42 4 0 38 1.86 78

47 N ACADEMY BL/VICKERS DR 39 5 7 27 19.92 777

48 CONSTITUTION AV/N ACADEMY BL 57 4 0 53 1.63 93

49 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/E WOODMEN RD 40 3 1 36 4.15 166

50 DUBLIN BL/N ACADEMY BL 47 8 0 39 2.53 119

51 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/SIFERD BL 26 3 0 23 2.04 53

52 AIRPORT RD/S MURRAY BL 27 0 0 27 1 27

53 N ACADEMY BL/PALMER PARK BL 65 4 0 61 1.55 101

159

Inter # Intersection Name

07-09

Total

07-09

Injury

07-09

Fatal

07-09

PDO N-CSL CSL

54 N POWERS BL/S CAREFREE CR 64 4 1 59 3.11 199

55 E PLATTE AV/N MURRAY BL 45 7 0 38 2.4 108

56 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/DUBLIN BL 31 2 0 29 1.58 49

57 E PIKES PEAK AV/N ACADEMY BL 64 2 0 62 1.28 82

58 2400 JANITELL RD/2899 S CIRCLE DR 34 3 0 31 1.79 61

59 N ACADEMY BL/N CAREFREE CR 53 1 0 52 1.17 62

60 S NEVADA AV/SOUTHGATE RD 45 8 0 37 2.6 117

61 E FOUNTAIN BL/S MURRAY BL 28 3 0 25 1.96 55

62 N CHESTNUT ST/W GARDEN OF THE GODS RD 31 4 3 24 11.74 364

63 CONSTITUTION AV/N POWERS BL 82 5 0 77 1.55 127

64 S 8TH ST/W CIMARRON ST 57 0 1 56 2.74 156

65 N ACADEMY BL/N UNION BL 59 1 0 58 1.15 68

66 E PLATTE AV/N CHELTON RD 51 3 1 47 3.47 177

67 DUBLIN BL/N UNION BL 43 11 4 28 12.51 538

68 E WOODMEN RD/RANGEWOOD DR 31 4 1 26 5.35 166

69 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/MEADOWLAND BL 24 2 0 22 1.75 42

70 S ACADEMY BL/S CHELTON RD 43 7 0 36 2.47 106

71 ACADEMY PARK LP/S ACADEMY BL 28 6 0 22 2.93 82

72 HALF TURN RD/N ACADEMY BL 22 3 0 19 2.23 49

73 LAKE AV/VENETUCCI BL 42 3 0 39 1.64 69

74 E WOODMEN RD/N ACADEMY BL 59 11 0 48 2.68 158

75 E FOUNTAIN BL/S ACADEMY BL 79 0 2 77 3.51 277

76 N ACADEMY BL/SHRIDER RD 34 6 1 27 5.5 187

77 GALLEY RD/N POWERS BL 45 8 0 37 2.6 117

78 E SAN MIGUEL ST/N ACADEMY BL 40 3 0 37 1.68 67

79 BRIARGATE BL/N ACADEMY BL 34 0 0 34 1 34

80 FLINTRIDGE DR/N ACADEMY BL 41 2 0 39 1.44 59

81 MEADOWLAND BL/N ACADEMY BL 34 4 1 29 4.97 169

160

Inter # Intersection Name

07-09

Total

07-09

Injury

07-09

Fatal

07-09

PDO N-CSL CSL

82 E FOUNTAIN BL/S POWERS BL 34 2 1 31 4.44 151

161

Table 46 Colorado Springs intersections ranked based on normalized crash severity level.

Rank Intersection Name N-CSL Weighted

1 N ACADEMY BL/VICKERS DR 19.92 0.150

2 DUBLIN BL/N UNION BL 12.51 0.094

3 N CHESTNUT ST/W GARDEN OF THE GODS RD 11.74 0.088

4 DRENNAN RD/S ACADEMY BL 8.97 0.068

5 E UINTAH ST/N CASCADE AV 8.45 0.064

6 AIRPORT RD/S ACADEMY BL 8.11 0.061

7 BRIARGATE PY/N POWERS BL 7.6 0.057

8 DUBLIN BL/N POWERS BL 6.8 0.051

9 BARNES RD/TUTT BL 5.5 0.041

10 N ACADEMY BL/SHRIDER RD 5.5 0.041

11 E WOODMEN RD/RANGEWOOD DR 5.35 0.040

12 MEADOWLAND BL/N ACADEMY BL 4.97 0.037

13 MAIZELAND RD/N ACADEMY BL 4.91 0.037

14 N POWERS BL/OLD RANCH RD 4.46 0.034

15 E FOUNTAIN BL/S POWERS BL 4.44 0.033

16 E BIJOU ST/N ACADEMY BL 4.41 0.033

17 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/E WOODMEN RD 4.15 0.031

18 BARNES RD/ORO BLANCO DR 4.09 0.031

19 MILTON E PROBY PY/S POWERS BL 3.81 0.029

20 N POWERS BL/N UNION BL 3.74 0.028

21 E PLATTE AV/N ACADEMY BL 3.55 0.027

22 E FOUNTAIN BL/S ACADEMY BL 3.51 0.026

23 E PLATTE AV/N CHELTON RD 3.47 0.026

24 N CAREFREE CR/N POWERS BL 3.3 0.025

25 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/BARNES RD 3.11 0.023

26 N POWERS BL/S CAREFREE CR 3.11 0.023

27 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/N ACADEMY BL 2.93 0.022

28 ACADEMY PARK LP/S ACADEMY BL 2.93 0.022

29 AIRPORT RD/S POWERS BL 2.9 0.022

30 ASTROZON BL/S ACADEMY BL 2.89 0.022

31 E PIKES PEAK AV/N UNION BL 2.8 0.021

32 S 8TH ST/W CIMARRON ST 2.74 0.021

33 N POWERS BL/STETSON HILLS BL 2.73 0.021

34 E WOODMEN RD/N ACADEMY BL 2.68 0.020

35 S NEVADA AV/SOUTHGATE RD 2.6 0.020

36 GALLEY RD/N POWERS BL 2.6 0.020

37 DUBLIN BL/N ACADEMY BL 2.53 0.019

38 S ACADEMY BL/S CHELTON RD 2.47 0.019

39 E PLATTE AV/N MURRAY BL 2.4 0.018

162

Rank Intersection Name N-CSL Weighted

40 E PLATTE AV/N UNION BL 2.31 0.017

41 BLOOMINGTON ST/N CAREFREE CR 2.29 0.017

42 HALF TURN RD/N ACADEMY BL 2.23 0.017

43 I-25/S NEVADA AV 2.1 0.016

44 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/SIFERD BL 2.04 0.015

45 I-25/W BIJOU ST 2.03 0.015

46 E FOUNTAIN BL/S MURRAY BL 1.96 0.015

47 HANCOCK EY/S ACADEMY BL 1.86 0.014

48 E WOODMEN RD/LEXINGTON DR 1.79 0.013

49 2400 JANITELL RD/2899 S CIRCLE DR 1.79 0.013

50 E PLATTE AV/N WAHSATCH AV 1.77 0.013

51 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/MEADOWLAND BL 1.75 0.013

52 BARNES RD/N POWERS BL 1.71 0.013

53 E SAN MIGUEL ST/N ACADEMY BL 1.68 0.013

54 S 21ST ST/W CIMARRON ST 1.67 0.013

55 I-25/W CIMARRON ST 1.66 0.013

56 LAKE AV/VENETUCCI BL 1.64 0.012

57 E PORTAL DR/N ACADEMY BL 1.63 0.012

58 CONSTITUTION AV/N ACADEMY BL 1.63 0.012

59 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/RANGEWOOD DR 1.58 0.012

60 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/DUBLIN BL 1.58 0.012

61 E PLATTE AV/N CIRCLE DR 1.56 0.012

62 N ACADEMY BL/PALMER PARK BL 1.55 0.012

63 CONSTITUTION AV/N POWERS BL 1.55 0.012

64 I-25/S TEJON ST 1.54 0.012

65 I-25/W GARDEN OF THE GODS RD 1.53 0.012

66 I-25/S CIRCLE DR 1.51 0.011

67 I-25/W FILLMORE ST 1.5 0.011

68 HY-24 BYP/I-25 1.47 0.011

69 I-25/W UINTAH ST 1.46 0.011

70 FLINTRIDGE DR/N ACADEMY BL 1.44 0.011

71 PRINTERS PY/S PARKSIDE DR 1.39 0.010

72 GALLEY RD/N ACADEMY BL 1.37 0.010

73 HY-115/LAKE AV 1.36 0.010

74 E PIKES PEAK AV/N ACADEMY BL 1.28 0.010

75 I-25/N NEVADA AV 1.19 0.009

76 N ACADEMY BL/N CAREFREE CR 1.17 0.009

77 N ACADEMY BL/N UNION BL 1.15 0.009

78 E WOODMEN RD/I-25 1.13 0.009

79 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/N UNION BL 1.1 0.008

163

Rank Intersection Name N-CSL Weighted

80 N MURRAY BL/PALMER PARK BL 1 0.008

81 AIRPORT RD/S MURRAY BL 1 0.008

82 BRIARGATE BL/N ACADEMY BL 1 0.008

164

Table 47 Colorado Springs intersections ranked based on crash severity level.

Rank Intersection Name CSL Weighted

1 AIRPORT RD/S ACADEMY BL 811 0.200

2 N ACADEMY BL/VICKERS DR 777 0.192

3 DUBLIN BL/N UNION BL 538 0.133

4 BRIARGATE PY/N POWERS BL 456 0.112

5 DUBLIN BL/N POWERS BL 401 0.099

6 E PLATTE AV/N ACADEMY BL 376 0.093

7 N CHESTNUT ST/W GARDEN OF THE GODS RD 364 0.090

8 MAIZELAND RD/N ACADEMY BL 339 0.084

9 DRENNAN RD/S ACADEMY BL 314 0.077

10 N CAREFREE CR/N POWERS BL 284 0.070

11 E FOUNTAIN BL/S ACADEMY BL 277 0.068

12 E BIJOU ST/N ACADEMY BL 256 0.063

13 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/N ACADEMY BL 246 0.061

14 E UINTAH ST/N CASCADE AV 245 0.060

15 E WOODMEN RD/I-25 231 0.057

16 N POWERS BL/STETSON HILLS BL 227 0.056

17 I-25/W GARDEN OF THE GODS RD 208 0.051

18 AIRPORT RD/S POWERS BL 206 0.051

19 N POWERS BL/S CAREFREE CR 199 0.049

20 I-25/S NEVADA AV 189 0.047

21 N ACADEMY BL/SHRIDER RD 187 0.046

22 MILTON E PROBY PY/S POWERS BL 183 0.045

23 I-25/W CIMARRON ST 181 0.045

24 E PLATTE AV/N CHELTON RD 177 0.044

25 N POWERS BL/OLD RANCH RD 174 0.043

26 BARNES RD/N POWERS BL 174 0.043

27 N POWERS BL/N UNION BL 172 0.042

28 MEADOWLAND BL/N ACADEMY BL 169 0.042

29 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/E WOODMEN RD 166 0.041

30 E WOODMEN RD/RANGEWOOD DR 166 0.041

31 BARNES RD/TUTT BL 165 0.041

32 I-25/W FILLMORE ST 163 0.040

33 E WOODMEN RD/N ACADEMY BL 158 0.039

34 S 8TH ST/W CIMARRON ST 156 0.038

35 E FOUNTAIN BL/S POWERS BL 151 0.037

36 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/BARNES RD 146 0.036

37 BARNES RD/ORO BLANCO DR 143 0.035

38 E PLATTE AV/N UNION BL 143 0.035

39 I-25/W BIJOU ST 142 0.035

165

Rank Intersection Name CSL Weighted

40 CONSTITUTION AV/N POWERS BL 127 0.031

41 DUBLIN BL/N ACADEMY BL 119 0.029

42 S NEVADA AV/SOUTHGATE RD 117 0.029

43 GALLEY RD/N POWERS BL 117 0.029

44 I-25/W UINTAH ST 114 0.028

45 ASTROZON BL/S ACADEMY BL 110 0.027

46 E PLATTE AV/N MURRAY BL 108 0.027

47 I-25/S CIRCLE DR 106 0.026

48 S ACADEMY BL/S CHELTON RD 106 0.026

49 N ACADEMY BL/PALMER PARK BL 101 0.025

50 E PLATTE AV/N CIRCLE DR 100 0.025

51 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/N UNION BL 98 0.024

52 CONSTITUTION AV/N ACADEMY BL 93 0.023

53 E PIKES PEAK AV/N UNION BL 84 0.021

54 E PIKES PEAK AV/N ACADEMY BL 82 0.020

55 ACADEMY PARK LP/S ACADEMY BL 82 0.020

56 HANCOCK EY/S ACADEMY BL 78 0.019

57 I-25/S TEJON ST 77 0.019

58 E PORTAL DR/N ACADEMY BL 70 0.017

59 LAKE AV/VENETUCCI BL 69 0.017

60 N ACADEMY BL/N UNION BL 68 0.017

61 GALLEY RD/N ACADEMY BL 67 0.017

62 E SAN MIGUEL ST/N ACADEMY BL 67 0.017

63 E PLATTE AV/N WAHSATCH AV 62 0.015

64 N ACADEMY BL/N CAREFREE CR 62 0.015

65 E WOODMEN RD/LEXINGTON DR 61 0.015

66 2400 JANITELL RD/2899 S CIRCLE DR 61 0.015

67 FLINTRIDGE DR/N ACADEMY BL 59 0.015

68 I-25/N NEVADA AV 57 0.014

69 HY-24 BYP/I-25 56 0.014

70 E FOUNTAIN BL/S MURRAY BL 55 0.014

71 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/SIFERD BL 53 0.013

72 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/RANGEWOOD DR 49 0.012

73 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/DUBLIN BL 49 0.012

74 HALF TURN RD/N ACADEMY BL 49 0.012

75 BLOOMINGTON ST/N CAREFREE CR 48 0.012

76 S 21ST ST/W CIMARRON ST 45 0.011

77 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/MEADOWLAND BL 42 0.010

78 HY-115/LAKE AV 34 0.008

79 BRIARGATE BL/N ACADEMY BL 34 0.008

166

Rank Intersection Name CSL Weighted

80 PRINTERS PY/S PARKSIDE DR 32 0.008

81 N MURRAY BL/PALMER PARK BL 29 0.007

82 AIRPORT RD/S MURRAY BL 27 0.007

167

Table 48 Analysis of Colorado Springs Intersections based on potential for improvement in relation to crash rate and crash frequency.

Est'd

Total Annual Annual Est'd Annual PFI PFI

Inter # Intersection Name AADT (07-09) Crashes Crashes Crash Rate Crash Rate Crashes Crash Rate Crash Freq

1 I-25/W CIMARRON ST 130700 109 36.3 0.76 0.59 28.3 0.17 8.0

2 E WOODMEN RD/I-25 144100 204 68.0 1.29 0.58 30.4 0.71 37.6

3 HY-115/LAKE AV 58500 25 8.3 0.39 0.74 15.7 -0.35 -7.4

4 E PLATTE AV/N ACADEMY BL 105000 106 35.3 0.92 0.63 24.1 0.29 11.2

5 I-25/W GARDEN OF THE GODS RD 155000 136 45.3 0.80 0.57 32.1 0.23 13.2

6 I-25/S CIRCLE DR 115400 70 23.3 0.55 0.61 25.9 -0.06 -2.5

7 I-25/S NEVADA AV 116300 90 30.0 0.71 0.61 26.0 0.09 4.0

8 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/N UNION BL 76000 89 29.7 1.07 0.69 19.0 0.38 10.6

9 I-25/W UINTAH ST 126600 78 26.0 0.56 0.60 27.7 -0.04 -1.7

10 I-25/W BIJOU ST 108800 70 23.3 0.59 0.62 24.8 -0.04 -1.4

11 I-25/S TEJON ST 94000 50 16.7 0.49 0.65 22.3 -0.16 -5.6

12 HY-24 BYP/I-25 115900 38 12.7 0.30 0.61 25.9 -0.31 -13.3

13 I-25/W FILLMORE ST 145500 109 36.3 0.68 0.58 30.7 0.11 5.7

14 I-25/N NEVADA AV 124800 48 16.0 0.35 0.60 27.4 -0.25 -11.4

15 BARNES RD/TUTT BL 27800 30 10.0 0.99 0.90 9.1 0.09 0.9

16 BRIARGATE PY/N POWERS BL 28600 60 20.0 1.92 0.89 9.3 1.02 10.7

17 MILTON E PROBY PY/S POWERS BL 38500 48 16.0 1.14 0.82 11.6 0.32 4.4

18 E BIJOU ST/N ACADEMY BL 56500 58 19.3 0.94 0.74 15.3 0.19 4.0

19 BARNES RD/ORO BLANCO DR 27100 35 11.7 1.18 0.90 8.9 0.28 2.7

20 N POWERS BL/OLD RANCH RD 40500 39 13.0 0.88 0.81 12.0 0.07 1.0

21 BARNES RD/N POWERS BL 58500 102 34.0 1.59 0.74 15.7 0.86 18.3

22 S 21ST ST/W CIMARRON ST 49600 27 9.0 0.50 0.77 13.9 -0.27 -4.9

23 MAIZELAND RD/N ACADEMY BL 59100 69 23.0 1.07 0.73 15.8 0.33 7.2

24 AIRPORT RD/S ACADEMY BL 68500 100 33.3 1.33 0.71 17.6 0.63 15.7

25 PRINTERS PY/S PARKSIDE DR 18000 23 7.7 1.17 1.01 6.6 0.16 1.0

168

Est'd

Total Annual Annual Est'd Annual PFI PFI

Inter # Intersection Name AADT (07-09) Crashes Crashes Crash Rate Crash Rate Crashes Crash Rate Crash Freq

26 E PLATTE AV/N UNION BL 42300 62 20.7 1.34 0.80 12.4 0.54 8.3

27 N POWERS BL/STETSON HILLS BL 62200 83 27.7 1.22 0.72 16.4 0.49 11.2

28 E PORTAL DR/N ACADEMY BL 48700 43 14.3 0.81 0.77 13.7 0.03 0.6

29 E PIKES PEAK AV/N UNION BL 43100 30 10.0 0.64 0.80 12.6 -0.16 -2.6

30 E PLATTE AV/N CIRCLE DR 67500 64 21.3 0.87 0.71 17.5 0.16 3.9

31 E WOODMEN RD/LEXINGTON DR 44400 34 11.3 0.70 0.79 12.8 -0.09 -1.5

32 DUBLIN BL/N POWERS BL 56700 59 19.7 0.95 0.74 15.4 0.21 4.3

33 N POWERS BL/N UNION BL 50900 46 15.3 0.83 0.76 14.2 0.06 1.1

34 BLOOMINGTON ST/N CAREFREE CR 29000 21 7.0 0.66 0.89 9.4 -0.23 -2.4

35 DRENNAN RD/S ACADEMY BL 50300 35 11.7 0.64 0.77 14.1 -0.13 -2.4

36 AIRPORT RD/S POWERS BL 63100 71 23.7 1.03 0.72 16.6 0.31 7.1

37 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/RANGEWOOD DR 28700 31 10.3 0.99 0.89 9.3 0.10 1.0

38 ASTROZON BL/S ACADEMY BL 43000 38 12.7 0.81 0.80 12.5 0.01 0.1

39 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/N ACADEMY BL 92300 84 28.0 0.83 0.65 22.0 0.18 6.0

40 E UINTAH ST/N CASCADE AV 41400 29 9.7 0.64 0.81 12.2 -0.17 -2.5

41 N MURRAY BL/PALMER PARK BL 24600 29 9.7 1.08 0.93 8.3 0.15 1.3

42 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/BARNES RD 58900 47 15.7 0.73 0.73 15.8 -0.01 -0.1

43 E PLATTE AV/N WAHSATCH AV 36400 35 11.7 0.88 0.84 11.1 0.04 0.6

44 GALLEY RD/N ACADEMY BL 67400 49 16.3 0.66 0.71 17.4 -0.04 -1.1

45 N CAREFREE CR/N POWERS BL 82000 86 28.7 0.96 0.67 20.1 0.29 8.5

46 HANCOCK EY/S ACADEMY BL 59200 42 14.0 0.65 0.73 15.9 -0.09 -1.9

47 N ACADEMY BL/VICKERS DR 63500 39 13.0 0.56 0.72 16.7 -0.16 -3.7

48 CONSTITUTION AV/N ACADEMY BL 58800 57 19.0 0.89 0.74 15.8 0.15 3.2

49 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/E WOODMEN RD 53000 40 13.3 0.69 0.76 14.6 -0.07 -1.3

50 DUBLIN BL/N ACADEMY BL 67013 47 15.7 0.64 0.71 17.4 -0.07 -1.7

51 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/SIFERD BL 46800 26 8.7 0.51 0.78 13.3 -0.27 -4.7

169

Est'd

Total Annual Annual Est'd Annual PFI PFI

Inter # Intersection Name AADT (07-09) Crashes Crashes Crash Rate Crash Rate Crashes Crash Rate Crash Freq

52 AIRPORT RD/S MURRAY BL 28600 27 9.0 0.86 0.89 9.3 -0.03 -0.3

53 N ACADEMY BL/PALMER PARK BL 65100 65 21.7 0.91 0.72 17.0 0.20 4.7

54 N POWERS BL/S CAREFREE CR 76500 64 21.3 0.76 0.69 19.1 0.08 2.2

55 E PLATTE AV/N MURRAY BL 61100 45 15.0 0.67 0.73 16.2 -0.06 -1.2

56 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/DUBLIN BL 29500 31 10.3 0.96 0.88 9.5 0.08 0.8

57 E PIKES PEAK AV/N ACADEMY BL 59600 64 21.3 0.98 0.73 15.9 0.25 5.4

58 2400 JANITELL RD/2899 S CIRCLE DR 55000 34 11.3 0.56 0.75 15.0 -0.18 -3.7

59 N ACADEMY BL/N CAREFREE CR 63900 53 17.7 0.76 0.72 16.8 0.04 0.9

60 S NEVADA AV/SOUTHGATE RD 57000 45 15.0 0.72 0.74 15.4 -0.02 -0.4

61 E FOUNTAIN BL/S MURRAY BL 46700 28 9.3 0.55 0.78 13.3 -0.23 -4.0

62 N CHESTNUT ST/W GARDEN OF THE GODS RD 62000 31 10.3 0.46 0.72 16.4 -0.27 -6.1

63 CONSTITUTION AV/N POWERS BL 101000 82 27.3 0.74 0.64 23.5 0.11 3.9

64 S 8TH ST/W CIMARRON ST 75900 57 19.0 0.69 0.69 19.0 0.00 0.0

65 N ACADEMY BL/N UNION BL 67500 59 19.7 0.80 0.71 17.5 0.09 2.2

66 E PLATTE AV/N CHELTON RD 56600 51 17.0 0.82 0.74 15.3 0.08 1.7

67 DUBLIN BL/N UNION BL 51000 43 14.3 0.77 0.76 14.2 0.01 0.1

68 E WOODMEN RD/RANGEWOOD DR 52200 31 10.3 0.54 0.76 14.5 -0.22 -4.1

69 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/MEADOWLAND BL 42600 24 8.0 0.51 0.80 12.5 -0.29 -4.5

70 S ACADEMY BL/S CHELTON RD 55800 43 14.3 0.70 0.75 15.2 -0.04 -0.8

71 ACADEMY PARK LP/S ACADEMY BL 49300 28 9.3 0.52 0.77 13.9 -0.25 -4.5

72 HALF TURN RD/N ACADEMY BL 63500 22 7.3 0.32 0.72 16.7 -0.40 -9.4

73 LAKE AV/VENETUCCI BL 47600 42 14.0 0.81 0.78 13.5 0.03 0.5

74 E WOODMEN RD/N ACADEMY BL 92400 59 19.7 0.58 0.65 22.0 -0.07 -2.3

75 E FOUNTAIN BL/S ACADEMY BL 78800 79 26.3 0.92 0.68 19.6 0.24 6.8

76 N ACADEMY BL/SHRIDER RD 57500 34 11.3 0.54 0.74 15.5 -0.20 -4.2

77 GALLEY RD/N POWERS BL 74300 45 15.0 0.55 0.69 18.7 -0.14 -3.7

170

Est'd

Total Annual Annual Est'd Annual PFI PFI

Inter # Intersection Name AADT (07-09) Crashes Crashes Crash Rate Crash Rate Crashes Crash Rate Crash Freq

78 E SAN MIGUEL ST/N ACADEMY BL 54800 40 13.3 0.67 0.75 15.0 -0.08 -1.6

79 BRIARGATE BL/N ACADEMY BL 67000 34 11.3 0.46 0.71 17.4 -0.25 -6.0

80 FLINTRIDGE DR/N ACADEMY BL 59500 41 13.7 0.63 0.73 15.9 -0.10 -2.2

81 MEADOWLAND BL/N ACADEMY BL 63700 34 11.3 0.49 0.72 16.7 -0.23 -5.4

82 E FOUNTAIN BL/S POWERS BL 74500 34 11.3 0.42 0.69 18.8 -0.27 -7.4

Total 5361013 4409

Average 0.78

Average 0.75

171

Table 49 Colorado Springs intersections ranked based on potential for improvement in relation to crash

rate.

PFI

Rank Intersection Name Crash Rate Weighted

1 BRIARGATE PY/N POWERS BL 1.02 0.20

2 BARNES RD/N POWERS BL 0.86 0.17

3 E WOODMEN RD/I-25 0.71 0.14

4 AIRPORT RD/S ACADEMY BL 0.63 0.12

5 E PLATTE AV/N UNION BL 0.54 0.10

6 N POWERS BL/STETSON HILLS BL 0.49 0.10

7 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/N UNION BL 0.38 0.07

8 MAIZELAND RD/N ACADEMY BL 0.33 0.06

9 MILTON E PROBY PY/S POWERS BL 0.32 0.06

10 AIRPORT RD/S POWERS BL 0.31 0.06

11 E PLATTE AV/N ACADEMY BL 0.29 0.06

12 N CAREFREE CR/N POWERS BL 0.29 0.06

13 BARNES RD/ORO BLANCO DR 0.28 0.05

14 E PIKES PEAK AV/N ACADEMY BL 0.25 0.05

15 E FOUNTAIN BL/S ACADEMY BL 0.24 0.05

16 I-25/W GARDEN OF THE GODS RD 0.23 0.05

17 DUBLIN BL/N POWERS BL 0.21 0.04

18 N ACADEMY BL/PALMER PARK BL 0.20 0.04

19 E BIJOU ST/N ACADEMY BL 0.19 0.04

20 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/N ACADEMY BL 0.18 0.03

21 I-25/W CIMARRON ST 0.17 0.03

22 PRINTERS PY/S PARKSIDE DR 0.16 0.03

23 E PLATTE AV/N CIRCLE DR 0.16 0.03

24 CONSTITUTION AV/N ACADEMY BL 0.15 0.03

25 N MURRAY BL/PALMER PARK BL 0.15 0.03

26 I-25/W FILLMORE ST 0.11 0.02

27 CONSTITUTION AV/N POWERS BL 0.11 0.02

28 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/RANGEWOOD DR 0.10 0.02

29 I-25/S NEVADA AV 0.09 0.02

30 N ACADEMY BL/N UNION BL 0.09 0.02

31 BARNES RD/TUTT BL 0.09 0.02

32 E PLATTE AV/N CHELTON RD 0.08 0.02

33 N POWERS BL/S CAREFREE CR 0.08 0.02

34 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/DUBLIN BL 0.08 0.01

35 N POWERS BL/OLD RANCH RD 0.07 0.01

36 N POWERS BL/N UNION BL 0.06 0.01

37 E PLATTE AV/N WAHSATCH AV 0.04 0.01

172

PFI

Rank Intersection Name Crash Rate Weighted

38 N ACADEMY BL/N CAREFREE CR 0.04 0.01

39 E PORTAL DR/N ACADEMY BL 0.03 0.01

40 LAKE AV/VENETUCCI BL 0.03 0.01

41 ASTROZON BL/S ACADEMY BL 0.01 0.00

42 DUBLIN BL/N UNION BL 0.01 0.00

43 S 8TH ST/W CIMARRON ST 0.00 0.00

44 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/BARNES RD -0.01 0.00

45 S NEVADA AV/SOUTHGATE RD -0.02 0.00

46 AIRPORT RD/S MURRAY BL -0.03 -0.01

47 I-25/W BIJOU ST -0.04 -0.01

48 I-25/W UINTAH ST -0.04 -0.01

49 S ACADEMY BL/S CHELTON RD -0.04 -0.01

50 GALLEY RD/N ACADEMY BL -0.04 -0.01

51 E PLATTE AV/N MURRAY BL -0.06 -0.01

52 I-25/S CIRCLE DR -0.06 -0.01

53 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/E WOODMEN RD -0.07 -0.01

54 E WOODMEN RD/N ACADEMY BL -0.07 -0.01

55 DUBLIN BL/N ACADEMY BL -0.07 -0.01

56 E SAN MIGUEL ST/N ACADEMY BL -0.08 -0.02

57 HANCOCK EY/S ACADEMY BL -0.09 -0.02

58 E WOODMEN RD/LEXINGTON DR -0.09 -0.02

59 FLINTRIDGE DR/N ACADEMY BL -0.10 -0.02

60 DRENNAN RD/S ACADEMY BL -0.13 -0.03

61 GALLEY RD/N POWERS BL -0.14 -0.03

62 N ACADEMY BL/VICKERS DR -0.16 -0.03

63 I-25/S TEJON ST -0.16 -0.03

64 E PIKES PEAK AV/N UNION BL -0.16 -0.03

65 E UINTAH ST/N CASCADE AV -0.17 -0.03

66 2400 JANITELL RD/2899 S CIRCLE DR -0.18 -0.04

67 N ACADEMY BL/SHRIDER RD -0.20 -0.04

68 E WOODMEN RD/RANGEWOOD DR -0.22 -0.04

69 BLOOMINGTON ST/N CAREFREE CR -0.23 -0.04

70 MEADOWLAND BL/N ACADEMY BL -0.23 -0.05

71 E FOUNTAIN BL/S MURRAY BL -0.23 -0.05

72 BRIARGATE BL/N ACADEMY BL -0.25 -0.05

73 I-25/N NEVADA AV -0.25 -0.05

74 ACADEMY PARK LP/S ACADEMY BL -0.25 -0.05

75 N CHESTNUT ST/W GARDEN OF THE GODS RD -0.27 -0.05

76 S 21ST ST/W CIMARRON ST -0.27 -0.05

173

PFI

Rank Intersection Name Crash Rate Weighted

77 E FOUNTAIN BL/S POWERS BL -0.27 -0.05

78 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/SIFERD BL -0.27 -0.05

79 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/MEADOWLAND BL -0.29 -0.06

80 HY-24 BYP/I-25 -0.31 -0.06

81 HY-115/LAKE AV -0.35 -0.07

82 HALF TURN RD/N ACADEMY BL -0.40 -0.08

174

Table 50 Colorado Springs intersections ranked based on potential for improvement in relation to crash

frequency.

PFI

Rank Intersection Name Crash Freq Weighted

1 E WOODMEN RD/I-25 37.56 0.30

2 BARNES RD/N POWERS BL 18.28 0.15

3 AIRPORT RD/S ACADEMY BL 15.69 0.13

4 I-25/W GARDEN OF THE GODS RD 13.22 0.11

5 N POWERS BL/STETSON HILLS BL 11.23 0.09

6 E PLATTE AV/N ACADEMY BL 11.20 0.09

7 BRIARGATE PY/N POWERS BL 10.70 0.09

8 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/N UNION BL 10.62 0.08

9 N CAREFREE CR/N POWERS BL 8.53 0.07

10 E PLATTE AV/N UNION BL 8.27 0.07

11 I-25/W CIMARRON ST 7.99 0.06

12 MAIZELAND RD/N ACADEMY BL 7.16 0.06

13 AIRPORT RD/S POWERS BL 7.05 0.06

14 E FOUNTAIN BL/S ACADEMY BL 6.78 0.05

15 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/N ACADEMY BL 6.04 0.05

16 I-25/W FILLMORE ST 5.68 0.05

17 E PIKES PEAK AV/N ACADEMY BL 5.40 0.04

18 N ACADEMY BL/PALMER PARK BL 4.67 0.04

19 MILTON E PROBY PY/S POWERS BL 4.43 0.04

20 DUBLIN BL/N POWERS BL 4.30 0.03

21 E BIJOU ST/N ACADEMY BL 4.01 0.03

22 I-25/S NEVADA AV 3.99 0.03

23 E PLATTE AV/N CIRCLE DR 3.88 0.03

24 CONSTITUTION AV/N POWERS BL 3.88 0.03

25 CONSTITUTION AV/N ACADEMY BL 3.22 0.03

26 BARNES RD/ORO BLANCO DR 2.73 0.02

27 N ACADEMY BL/N UNION BL 2.21 0.02

28 N POWERS BL/S CAREFREE CR 2.20 0.02

29 E PLATTE AV/N CHELTON RD 1.66 0.01

30 N MURRAY BL/PALMER PARK BL 1.34 0.01

31 N POWERS BL/N UNION BL 1.14 0.01

32 PRINTERS PY/S PARKSIDE DR 1.04 0.01

33 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/RANGEWOOD DR 1.01 0.01

34 N POWERS BL/OLD RANCH RD 1.00 0.01

35 N ACADEMY BL/N CAREFREE CR 0.90 0.01

36 BARNES RD/TUTT BL 0.89 0.01

37 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/DUBLIN BL 0.82 0.01

175

PFI

Rank Intersection Name Crash Freq Weighted

38 E PORTAL DR/N ACADEMY BL 0.59 0.00

39 E PLATTE AV/N WAHSATCH AV 0.57 0.00

40 LAKE AV/VENETUCCI BL 0.49 0.00

41 ASTROZON BL/S ACADEMY BL 0.12 0.00

42 DUBLIN BL/N UNION BL 0.12 0.00

43 S 8TH ST/W CIMARRON ST -0.02 0.00

44 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/BARNES RD -0.13 0.00

45 AIRPORT RD/S MURRAY BL -0.30 0.00

46 S NEVADA AV/SOUTHGATE RD -0.42 0.00

47 S ACADEMY BL/S CHELTON RD -0.85 -0.01

48 GALLEY RD/N ACADEMY BL -1.10 -0.01

49 E PLATTE AV/N MURRAY BL -1.23 -0.01

50 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/E WOODMEN RD -1.29 -0.01

51 I-25/W BIJOU ST -1.44 -0.01

52 E WOODMEN RD/LEXINGTON DR -1.51 -0.01

53 E SAN MIGUEL ST/N ACADEMY BL -1.65 -0.01

54 I-25/W UINTAH ST -1.68 -0.01

55 DUBLIN BL/N ACADEMY BL -1.70 -0.01

56 HANCOCK EY/S ACADEMY BL -1.86 -0.01

57 FLINTRIDGE DR/N ACADEMY BL -2.25 -0.02

58 E WOODMEN RD/N ACADEMY BL -2.31 -0.02

59 BLOOMINGTON ST/N CAREFREE CR -2.40 -0.02

60 DRENNAN RD/S ACADEMY BL -2.40 -0.02

61 E UINTAH ST/N CASCADE AV -2.53 -0.02

62 I-25/S CIRCLE DR -2.53 -0.02

63 E PIKES PEAK AV/N UNION BL -2.56 -0.02

64 2400 JANITELL RD/2899 S CIRCLE DR -3.69 -0.03

65 N ACADEMY BL/VICKERS DR -3.69 -0.03

66 GALLEY RD/N POWERS BL -3.73 -0.03

67 E FOUNTAIN BL/S MURRAY BL -3.99 -0.03

68 E WOODMEN RD/RANGEWOOD DR -4.12 -0.03

69 N ACADEMY BL/SHRIDER RD -4.19 -0.03

70 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/MEADOWLAND BL -4.46 -0.04

71 ACADEMY PARK LP/S ACADEMY BL -4.53 -0.04

72 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/SIFERD BL -4.68 -0.04

73 S 21ST ST/W CIMARRON ST -4.93 -0.04

74 MEADOWLAND BL/N ACADEMY BL -5.40 -0.04

75 I-25/S TEJON ST -5.59 -0.04

76 BRIARGATE BL/N ACADEMY BL -6.03 -0.05

176

PFI

Rank Intersection Name Crash Freq Weighted

77 N CHESTNUT ST/W GARDEN OF THE GODS RD -6.07 -0.05

78 HY-115/LAKE AV -7.38 -0.06

79 E FOUNTAIN BL/S POWERS BL -7.43 -0.06

80 HALF TURN RD/N ACADEMY BL -9.36 -0.07

81 I-25/N NEVADA AV -11.39 -0.09

82 HY-24 BYP/I-25 -13.28 -0.11

177

Table 51 Analysis of Colorado Springs intersections based on crash types

Inters # Intersection Front to side Rate Rear end Rate Other TC Total volume

1 I-25/W CIMARRON ST 10 0.19 13 0.24 86 109 130700

2 E WOODMEN RD/I-25 13 0.24 17 0.32 174 204 144100

3 HY-115/LAKE AV 6 0.11 4 0.07 15 25 58500

4 E PLATTE AV/N ACADEMY BL 41 0.76 19 0.35 46 106 105000

5 I-25/W GARDEN OF THE GODS RD 10 0.19 22 0.41 104 136 155000

6 I-25/S CIRCLE DR 21 0.39 11 0.20 38 70 115400

7 I-25/S NEVADA AV 13 0.24 17 0.32 60 90 116300

8 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/N UNION BL 14 0.26 9 0.17 66 89 76000

9 I-25/W UINTAH ST 19 0.35 8 0.15 51 78 126600

10 I-25/W BIJOU ST 18 0.33 10 0.19 42 70 108800

11 I-25/S TEJON ST 15 0.28 3 0.06 32 50 94000

12 HY-24 BYP/I-25 7 0.13 6 0.11 25 38 115900

13 I-25/W FILLMORE ST 12 0.22 15 0.28 82 109 145500

14 I-25/N NEVADA AV 13 0.24 12 0.22 23 48 124800

15 BARNES RD/TUTT BL 18 0.33 4 0.07 8 30 27800

16 BRIARGATE PY/N POWERS BL 32 0.60 9 0.17 19 60 28600

17 MILTON E PROBY PY/S POWERS BL 19 0.35 8 0.15 21 48 38500

18 E BIJOU ST/N ACADEMY BL 18 0.33 14 0.26 26 58 56500

19 BARNES RD/ORO BLANCO DR 16 0.30 4 0.07 15 35 27100

20 N POWERS BL/OLD RANCH RD 20 0.37 11 0.20 8 39 40500

21 BARNES RD/N POWERS BL 5 0.09 7 0.13 90 102 58500

22 S 21ST ST/W CIMARRON ST 6 0.11 2 0.04 19 27 49600

23 MAIZELAND RD/N ACADEMY BL 17 0.32 18 0.33 34 69 59100

24 AIRPORT RD/S ACADEMY BL 13 0.24 9 0.17 78 100 68500

25 PRINTERS PY/S PARKSIDE DR 20 0.37 8 0.15 -5 23 18000

26 E PLATTE AV/N UNION BL 34 0.63 13 0.24 15 62 42300

27 N POWERS BL/STETSON HILLS BL 13 0.24 18 0.33 52 83 62200

178

Inters # Intersection Front to side Rate Rear end Rate Other TC Total volume

28 E PORTAL DR/N ACADEMY BL 7 0.13 7 0.13 29 43 48700

29 E PIKES PEAK AV/N UNION BL 12 0.22 5 0.09 13 30 43100

30 E PLATTE AV/N CIRCLE DR 15 0.28 5 0.09 44 64 67500

31 E WOODMEN RD/LEXINGTON DR 11 0.20 8 0.15 15 34 44400

32 DUBLIN BL/N POWERS BL 6 0.11 1 0.02 52 59 56700

33 N POWERS BL/N UNION BL 27 0.50 11 0.20 8 46 50900

34 BLOOMINGTON ST/N CAREFREE CR 8 0.15 3 0.06 10 21 29000

35 DRENNAN RD/S ACADEMY BL 13 0.24 8 0.15 14 35 50300

36 AIRPORT RD/S POWERS BL 14 0.26 16 0.30 41 71 63100

37 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/RANGEWOOD DR 13 0.24 8 0.15 10 31 28700

38 ASTROZON BL/S ACADEMY BL 15 0.28 7 0.13 16 38 43000

39 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/N ACADEMY BL 12 0.22 24 0.45 48 84 92300

40 E UINTAH ST/N CASCADE AV 12 0.22 6 0.11 11 29 41400

41 N MURRAY BL/PALMER PARK BL 12 0.22 2 0.04 15 29 24600

42 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/BARNES RD 12 0.22 4 0.07 31 47 58900

43 E PLATTE AV/N WAHSATCH AV 10 0.19 8 0.15 17 35 36400

44 GALLEY RD/N ACADEMY BL 8 0.15 12 0.22 29 49 67400

45 N CAREFREE CR/N POWERS BL 14 0.26 19 0.35 53 86 82000

46 HANCOCK EY/S ACADEMY BL 6 0.11 4 0.07 32 42 59200

47 N ACADEMY BL/VICKERS DR 11 0.20 5 0.09 23 39 63500

48 CONSTITUTION AV/N ACADEMY BL 11 0.20 11 0.20 35 57 58800

49 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/E WOODMEN RD 8 0.15 10 0.19 22 40 53000

50 DUBLIN BL/N ACADEMY BL 12 0.22 9 0.17 26 47 67013

51 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/SIFERD BL 8 0.15 5 0.09 13 26 46800

52 AIRPORT RD/S MURRAY BL 9 0.17 2 0.04 16 27 28600

53 N ACADEMY BL/PALMER PARK BL 25 0.46 14 0.26 26 65 65100

54 N POWERS BL/S CAREFREE CR 9 0.17 15 0.28 40 64 76500

55 E PLATTE AV/N MURRAY BL 15 0.28 9 0.17 21 45 61100

56 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/DUBLIN BL 14 0.26 7 0.13 10 31 29500

179

Inters # Intersection Front to side Rate Rear end Rate Other TC Total volume

57 E PIKES PEAK AV/N ACADEMY BL 7 0.13 15 0.28 42 64 59600

58 2400 JANITELL RD/2899 S CIRCLE DR 6 0.11 3 0.06 25 34 55000

59 N ACADEMY BL/N CAREFREE CR 10 0.19 12 0.22 31 53 63900

60 S NEVADA AV/SOUTHGATE RD 16 0.30 6 0.11 23 45 57000

61 E FOUNTAIN BL/S MURRAY BL 11 0.20 3 0.06 14 28 46700

62 N CHESTNUT ST/W GARDEN OF THE GODS RD 12 0.22 2 0.04 17 31 62000

63 CONSTITUTION AV/N POWERS BL 9 0.17 17 0.32 56 82 101000

64 S 8TH ST/W CIMARRON ST 12 0.22 11 0.20 34 57 75900

65 N ACADEMY BL/N UNION BL 14 0.26 21 0.39 24 59 67500

66 E PLATTE AV/N CHELTON RD 11 0.20 16 0.30 24 51 56600

67 DUBLIN BL/N UNION BL 20 0.37 9 0.17 14 43 51000

68 E WOODMEN RD/RANGEWOOD DR 19 0.35 3 0.06 9 31 52200

69 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/MEADOWLAND BL 11 0.20 6 0.11 7 24 42600

70 S ACADEMY BL/S CHELTON RD 10 0.19 12 0.22 21 43 55800

71 ACADEMY PARK LP/S ACADEMY BL 18 0.33 4 0.07 6 28 49300

72 HALF TURN RD/N ACADEMY BL 7 0.13 8 0.15 7 22 63500

73 LAKE AV/VENETUCCI BL 15 0.28 11 0.20 16 42 47600

74 E WOODMEN RD/N ACADEMY BL 8 0.15 14 0.26 37 59 92400

75 E FOUNTAIN BL/S ACADEMY BL 5 0.09 7 0.13 67 79 78800

76 N ACADEMY BL/SHRIDER RD 7 0.13 7 0.13 20 34 57500

77 GALLEY RD/N POWERS BL 7 0.13 8 0.15 30 45 74300

78 E SAN MIGUEL ST/N ACADEMY BL 14 0.26 9 0.17 17 40 54800

79 BRIARGATE BL/N ACADEMY BL 6 0.11 8 0.15 20 34 67000

80 FLINTRIDGE DR/N ACADEMY BL 14 0.26 17 0.32 10 41 59500

81 MEADOWLAND BL/N ACADEMY BL 10 0.19 7 0.13 17 34 63700

82 E FOUNTAIN BL/S POWERS BL 9 0.17 11 0.20 14 34 74500

Total 4409

Ave 53.8

180

Table 52 Colorado Springs intersections ranked based on front to side rate.

Rank Intersection Front to Side Rate Weighted

1 E PLATTE AV/N ACADEMY BL 0.76 0.150

2 E PLATTE AV/N UNION BL 0.63 0.124

3 BRIARGATE PY/N POWERS BL 0.60 0.117

4 N POWERS BL/N UNION BL 0.50 0.099

5 N ACADEMY BL/PALMER PARK BL 0.46 0.091

6 I-25/S CIRCLE DR 0.39 0.077

7 N POWERS BL/OLD RANCH RD 0.37 0.073

8 PRINTERS PY/S PARKSIDE DR 0.37 0.073

9 DUBLIN BL/N UNION BL 0.37 0.073

10 I-25/W UINTAH ST 0.35 0.070

11 MILTON E PROBY PY/S POWERS BL 0.35 0.070

12 E WOODMEN RD/RANGEWOOD DR 0.35 0.070

13 I-25/W BIJOU ST 0.33 0.066

14 BARNES RD/TUTT BL 0.33 0.066

15 E BIJOU ST/N ACADEMY BL 0.33 0.066

16 ACADEMY PARK LP/S ACADEMY BL 0.33 0.066

17 MAIZELAND RD/N ACADEMY BL 0.32 0.062

18 BARNES RD/ORO BLANCO DR 0.30 0.059

19 S NEVADA AV/SOUTHGATE RD 0.30 0.059

20 I-25/S TEJON ST 0.28 0.055

21 E PLATTE AV/N CIRCLE DR 0.28 0.055

22 ASTROZON BL/S ACADEMY BL 0.28 0.055

23 E PLATTE AV/N MURRAY BL 0.28 0.055

24 LAKE AV/VENETUCCI BL 0.28 0.055

25 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/N UNION BL 0.26 0.051

26 AIRPORT RD/S POWERS BL 0.26 0.051

27 N CAREFREE CR/N POWERS BL 0.26 0.051

28 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/DUBLIN BL 0.26 0.051

29 N ACADEMY BL/N UNION BL 0.26 0.051

30 E SAN MIGUEL ST/N ACADEMY BL 0.26 0.051

31 FLINTRIDGE DR/N ACADEMY BL 0.26 0.051

32 E WOODMEN RD/I-25 0.24 0.048

33 I-25/S NEVADA AV 0.24 0.048

34 I-25/N NEVADA AV 0.24 0.048

35 AIRPORT RD/S ACADEMY BL 0.24 0.048

36 N POWERS BL/STETSON HILLS BL 0.24 0.048

37 DRENNAN RD/S ACADEMY BL 0.24 0.048

38 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/RANGEWOOD DR 0.24 0.048

39 I-25/W FILLMORE ST 0.22 0.044

181

Rank Intersection Front to Side Rate Weighted

40 E PIKES PEAK AV/N UNION BL 0.22 0.044

41 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/N ACADEMY BL 0.22 0.044

42 E UINTAH ST/N CASCADE AV 0.22 0.044

43 N MURRAY BL/PALMER PARK BL 0.22 0.044

44 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/BARNES RD 0.22 0.044

45 DUBLIN BL/N ACADEMY BL 0.22 0.044

46 N CHESTNUT ST/W GARDEN OF THE GODS RD 0.22 0.044

47 S 8TH ST/W CIMARRON ST 0.22 0.044

48 E WOODMEN RD/LEXINGTON DR 0.20 0.040

49 N ACADEMY BL/VICKERS DR 0.20 0.040

50 CONSTITUTION AV/N ACADEMY BL 0.20 0.040

51 E FOUNTAIN BL/S MURRAY BL 0.20 0.040

52 E PLATTE AV/N CHELTON RD 0.20 0.040

53 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/MEADOWLAND BL 0.20 0.040

54 I-25/W CIMARRON ST 0.19 0.037

55 I-25/W GARDEN OF THE GODS RD 0.19 0.037

56 E PLATTE AV/N WAHSATCH AV 0.19 0.037

57 N ACADEMY BL/N CAREFREE CR 0.19 0.037

58 S ACADEMY BL/S CHELTON RD 0.19 0.037

59 MEADOWLAND BL/N ACADEMY BL 0.19 0.037

60 AIRPORT RD/S MURRAY BL 0.17 0.033

61 N POWERS BL/S CAREFREE CR 0.17 0.033

62 CONSTITUTION AV/N POWERS BL 0.17 0.033

63 E FOUNTAIN BL/S POWERS BL 0.17 0.033

64 BLOOMINGTON ST/N CAREFREE CR 0.15 0.029

65 GALLEY RD/N ACADEMY BL 0.15 0.029

66 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/E WOODMEN RD 0.15 0.029

67 AUSTIN BLUFFS PY/SIFERD BL 0.15 0.029

68 E WOODMEN RD/N ACADEMY BL 0.15 0.029

69 HY-24 BYP/I-25 0.13 0.026

70 E PORTAL DR/N ACADEMY BL 0.13 0.026

71 E PIKES PEAK AV/N ACADEMY BL 0.13 0.026

72 HALF TURN RD/N ACADEMY BL 0.13 0.026

73 N ACADEMY BL/SHRIDER RD 0.13 0.026

74 GALLEY RD/N POWERS BL 0.13 0.026

75 HY-115/LAKE AV 0.11 0.022

76 S 21ST ST/W CIMARRON ST 0.11 0.022

77 DUBLIN BL/N POWERS BL 0.11 0.022

78 HANCOCK EY/S ACADEMY BL 0.11 0.022

79 2400 JANITELL RD/2899 S CIRCLE DR 0.11 0.022

182

Rank Intersection Front to Side Rate Weighted

80 BRIARGATE BL/N ACADEMY BL 0.11 0.022

81 BARNES RD/N POWERS BL 0.09 0.018

82 E FOUNTAIN BL/S ACADEMY BL 0.09 0.018

183

Table 53 Analysis of Fort Collins intersections based on crash severity level and normalized crash severity level.

Inter

# Intersection Name

Facility

ID

10-12

Total

10-12

Injury

10-12

Fatal

10-12

PDO N-CSL

CSL

Major Street Minor Street 1 LEMAY HARMONY RD 162 119 31 2 86 5.01 596

2 TIMBERLINE RD HORSETOOTH RD 146 100 24 3 73 6.13 613

3 COLLEGE AV TRILBY RD 34 82 27 0 55 3.96 325

4 BOARDWALK DR HARMONY RD 1 72 23 2 47 6.63 477

5 SHIELDS ST PLUM 118 54 11 3 40 8.33 450

6 TIMBERLINE RD DRAKE RD 144 78 17 1 60 4.23 330

7 SHIELDS ST ELIZABETH ST 109 77 15 0 62 2.75 212

8 SHIELDS ST SWALLOW 124 35 14 1 20 7.43 260

9 TIMBERLINE RD PROSPECT RD 149 79 21 0 58 3.39 268

10 SHIELDS ST HARMONY RD 110 45 15 1 29 6.2 279

11 SHIELDS ST MULBERRY ST 117 62 12 0 50 2.74 170

12 SHIELDS ST PROSPECT RD 119 77 19 2 56 5.79 446

13 TAFT HILL RD HORSETOOTH RD 137 34 9 0 25 3.38 115

14 CITY PARK ELIZABETH ST 3 9 9 0 0 10 90

15 TAFT HILL RD PROSPECT RD 140 43 12 0 31 3.51 151

16 COLLEGE AV MOUNTAIN 24 42 11 1 30 5.71 240

17 SHIELDS ST HORSETOOTH RD 111 56 17 1 38 5.5 308

18 MASON ST HARMONY RD 80 47 15 0 32 3.87 182

19 COLLEGE AV HARMONY RD 14 121 24 0 97 2.79 337

20 MCMURRY HARMONY RD 91 63 12 0 51 2.71 171

21 LEMAY DRAKE RD 59 64 15 0 49 3.11 199

22 TAFT HILL RD DRAKE RD 134 58 11 1 46 4.41 256

23 TAFT HILL RD MULBERRY ST 139 22 9 0 13 4.68 103

24 ZIEGLER ROCK CREEK 241 16 3 0 13 2.69 43

25 SHIELDS ST DRAKE RD 108 76 18 0 58 3.13 238

26 JFK BOARDWALK 54 23 6 0 17 3.35 77

27 SHIELDS ST ROLLAND MOORE 122 7 6 0 1 8.71 61

28 TIMBERLINE RD NANCY GRAY 13721 10 3 0 7 3.7 37

29 COLLEGE AV FOSSIL CREEK 13 24 9 0 15 4.38 105

30 LEMAY MULBERRY ST 66 78 18 0 60 3.08 240

31 COLLEGE AV MULBERRY ST 25 92 15 0 77 2.47 227

32 JFK HARMONY RD 55 43 12 0 31 3.51 151

184

Inter

# Intersection Name

Facility

ID

10-12

Total

10-12

Injury

10-12

Fatal

10-12

PDO N-CSL

CSL 33 LEMAY OAKRIDGE 235 14 6 0 8 4.86 68

34 CONSTITUTION ELIZABETH ST 39 7 3 0 4 4.86 34

35 JFK TROUTMAN 554 6 3 0 3 5.5 33

36 LOOMIS MULBERRY ST 77 13 3 0 10 3.08 40

37 TAFT HILL RD ELIZABETH ST 135 38 9 0 29 3.13 119

38 LEMAY STUART 71 22 9 0 13 4.68 103

39 MELDRUM MULBERRY ST 95 14 6 0 8 4.86 68

40 LEMAY SOUTHRIDGE 555 4 3 0 1 7.75 31

41 WORTHINGTON DRAKE 41 8 6 0 2 7.75 62

42 TIMBERLINE RD CARIBOU 142 16 6 0 10 4.38 70

43 TAFT HILL RD VALLEY FORGE 141 5 3 0 2 6.4 32

44 RIVERSIDE AV MOUNTAIN 104 10 3 0 7 3.7 37

45 SHIELDS ST ROCKY MOUNTAIN 121 6 3 0 3 5.5 33

46 YORKSHIRE DRAKE 7728 2 0 0 0 0 0

47 TIMBERLINE RD VERMONT 152 11 6 0 5 5.91 65

48 LEMAY FOSSIL CREEK 183 3 0 0 3 1 3

49 LEMAY PENNOCK 67 16 9 0 7 6.06 97

50 REMINGTON MULBERRY ST 101 32 6 0 26 2.69 86

51 LEMAY BOARDWALK 57 3 0 0 3 1 3

52 WHITCOMB PROSPECT 155 13 6 0 7 5.15 67

53 LEMAY ROBERTSON 70 2 3 0 -1 14.5 29

54 MANHATTAN HORSETOOTH RD 79 25 6 0 19 3.16 79

55 TRADITION HORSETOOTH RD 153 4 3 0 1 7.75 31

56 STARFLOWER HARMONY RD 127 7 3 0 4 4.86 34

57 TIMBERLINE RD BATTLE CREEK 6758 9 0 0 9 1 9

58 ZIEGLER COUNCIL TREE 14574 12 3 0 9 3.25 39

59 WHEDBEE MULBERRY ST 154 6 3 0 3 5.5 33

60 LEMAY PROSPECT RD 68 63 15 0 48 3.14 198

61 LEMAY RIVERSIDE 69 46 6 0 40 2.17 100

62 CENTRE PROSPECT 15359 23 6 0 17 3.35 77

63 STOVER DRAKE 128 16 3 0 13 2.69 43

64 TAFT HILL RD HARMONY RD 136 21 3 0 18 2.29 48

65 REMINGTON PROSPECT 103 14 3 0 11 2.93 41

66 COLLEGE AV OLIVE 26 14 3 0 11 2.93 41

185

Inter

# Intersection Name

Facility

ID

10-12

Total

10-12

Injury

10-12

Fatal

10-12

PDO N-CSL

CSL 67 COLLEGE AV SKYWAY 30 12 3 0 9 3.25 39

68 COLLEGE AV CHERRY 7 30 3 0 27 1.9 57

69 COLLEGE AV LAPORTE 19 18 3 0 15 2.5 45

70 LEMAY ELIZABETH ST 60 11 6 0 5 5.91 65

71 RIVERSIDE AV MULBERRY ST 105 51 6 0 45 2.06 105

72 COLLEGE AV MAGNOLIA 21 15 3 0 12 2.8 42

73 COLLEGE AV WILLOX 37 26 3 0 23 2.04 53

74 LINDEN JEFFERSON 75 1 0 0 1 1 1

75 LEMAY DOCTORS LN 58 10 3 0 7 3.7 37

76 RESEARCH/MEADOW LARK DRAKE 92 16 3 0 13 2.69 43

77 STANFORD HORSETOOTH RD 126 12 3 0 9 3.25 39

78 TIMBERLINE RD TIMBERWOOD 150 21 6 0 15 3.57 75

79 COLLEGE AV MAPLE/JEFFERSON 553 15 3 0 12 2.8 42

80 SHIELDS ST RAINTREE 120 22 8 1 13 8.77 193

81 MASON ST HORSETOOTH RD 6666 33 3 0 30 1.82 60

82 JFK HORSETOOTH RD 56 23 9 0 14 4.52 104

83 RIVERSIDE AV PROSPECT RD 106 29 3 0 26 1.93 56

84 TIMBERLINE RD CUSTER 240 7 0 0 7 1 7

85 COLLEGE AV MONROE 23 111 24 3 84 5.62 624

86 COLLEGE AV DRAKE RD 10 92 24 1 67 4.63 407

87 TIMBERLINE RD HARMONY RD 145 78 19 1 58 3.95 348

88 COLLEGE AV HORSETOOTH RD 16 153 28 2 123 3.94 603

89 COLLEGE AV FOOTHILLS 12 68 18 0 50 3.38 230

90 CORBETT HARMONY RD 40 50 9 0 41 2.62 131

91 COLLEGE AV LAUREL 20 57 17 1 39 5.42 309

92 COLLEGE AV HARVARD 15 25 9 0 16 4.24 106

93 COLLEGE AV BOCKMAN 5 23 9 0 14 4.52 104

94 SNOW MESA HARMONY RD 239 31 6 0 25 2.74 85

95 ZIEGLER HARMONY RD 157 51 12 0 39 3.12 159

96 COLLEGE AV KENSINGTON 18 30 9 0 21 3.7 111

97 COLLEGE AV BOARDWALK 4 49 14 1 34 5.59 274

98 COLLEGE AV RUTGERS 15033 33 6 0 27 2.64 87

99 COLLEGE AV SWALLOW 33 53 15 0 38 3.55 188

100 COLLEGE AV COLUMBIA 8 20 12 0 8 6.4 128

186

Inter

# Intersection Name

Facility

ID

10-12

Total

10-12

Injury

10-12

Fatal

10-12

PDO N-CSL

CSL 101 LADY MOON HARMONY RD 233 8 3 0 5 4.38 35

102 COLLEGE AV TROUTMAN 35 46 12 0 34 3.35 154

103 COLLEGE AV PITKIN 27 21 6 0 15 3.57 75

104 COLLEGE AV SPRING PARK 31 10 0 0 10 1 10

105 COLLEGE AV PROSPECT RD 28 115 19 2 94 4.21 484

106 COLLEGE AV STUART 32 16 0 0 16 1 16

Note: Intersections highlighted in yellow are referred to current RLC locations.

187

Table 54 Fort Collins intersections ranked based on normalized crash severity level.

Rank Intersection Name N-CSL Weighted

1 LEMAY ROBERTSON 14.5 0.2

2 CITY PARK ELIZABETH ST 10 0.14

3 SHIELDS ST RAINTREE 8.77 0.12

4 SHIELDS ST ROLLAND MOORE 8.71 0.12

5 SHIELDS ST PLUM 8.33 0.11

6 LEMAY SOUTHRIDGE 7.75 0.11

7 WORTHINGTON DRAKE 7.75 0.11

8 TRADITION HORSETOOTH RD 7.75 0.11

9 SHIELDS ST SWALLOW 7.43 0.10

10 BOARDWALK DR HARMONY RD 6.63 0.09

11 TAFT HILL RD VALLEY FORGE 6.4 0.09

12 COLLEGE AV COLUMBIA 6.4 0.09

13 SHIELDS ST HARMONY RD 6.2 0.09

14 TIMBERLINE RD HORSETOOTH RD 6.13 0.08

15 LEMAY PENNOCK 6.06 0.08

16 TIMBERLINE RD VERMONT 5.91 0.08

17 LEMAY ELIZABETH ST 5.91 0.08

18 SHIELDS ST PROSPECT RD 5.79 0.08

19 COLLEGE AV MOUNTAIN 5.71 0.08

20 COLLEGE AV MONROE 5.62 0.08

21 COLLEGE AV BOARDWALK 5.59 0.08

22 SHIELDS ST HORSETOOTH RD 5.5 0.08

23 JFK TROUTMAN 5.5 0.08

24 SHIELDS ST ROCKY MOUNTAIN 5.5 0.08

25 WHEDBEE MULBERRY ST 5.5 0.08

26 COLLEGE AV LAUREL 5.42 0.07

27 WHITCOMB PROSPECT 5.15 0.07

28 LEMAY HARMONY RD 5.01 0.07

29 LEMAY OAKRIDGE 4.86 0.07

30 CONSTITUTION ELIZABETH ST 4.86 0.07

31 MELDRUM MULBERRY ST 4.86 0.07

32 STARFLOWER HARMONY RD 4.86 0.07

33 TAFT HILL RD MULBERRY ST 4.68 0.06

34 LEMAY STUART 4.68 0.06

35 COLLEGE AV DRAKE RD 4.63 0.06

36 JFK HORSETOOTH RD 4.52 0.06

37 COLLEGE AV BOCKMAN 4.52 0.06

38 TAFT HILL RD DRAKE RD 4.41 0.06

39 COLLEGE AV FOSSIL CREEK 4.38 0.06

40 TIMBERLINE RD CARIBOU 4.38 0.06

41 LADY MOON HARMONY RD 4.38 0.06

42 COLLEGE AV HARVARD 4.24 0.06

43 TIMBERLINE RD DRAKE RD 4.23 0.06

44 COLLEGE AV PROSPECT RD 4.21 0.06

45 COLLEGE AV TRILBY RD 3.96 0.05

46 TIMBERLINE RD HARMONY RD 3.95 0.05

47 COLLEGE AV HORSETOOTH RD 3.94 0.05

48 MASON ST HARMONY RD 3.87 0.05

188

Rank Intersection Name N-CSL Weighted 49 TIMBERLINE RD NANCY GRAY 3.7 0.05

50 RIVERSIDE AV MOUNTAIN 3.7 0.05

51 LEMAY DOCTORS LN 3.7 0.05

52 COLLEGE AV KENSINGTON 3.7 0.05

53 TIMBERLINE RD TIMBERWOOD 3.57 0.05

54 COLLEGE AV PITKIN 3.57 0.05

55 COLLEGE AV SWALLOW 3.55 0.05

56 TAFT HILL RD PROSPECT RD 3.51 0.05

57 JFK HARMONY RD 3.51 0.05

58 TIMBERLINE RD PROSPECT RD 3.39 0.05

59 TAFT HILL RD HORSETOOTH RD 3.38 0.05

60 COLLEGE AV FOOTHILLS 3.38 0.05

61 JFK BOARDWALK 3.35 0.05

62 CENTRE PROSPECT 3.35 0.05

63 COLLEGE AV TROUTMAN 3.35 0.05

64 ZIEGLER COUNCIL TREE 3.25 0.04

65 COLLEGE AV SKYWAY 3.25 0.04

66 STANFORD HORSETOOTH RD 3.25 0.04

67 MANHATTAN HORSETOOTH RD 3.16 0.04

68 LEMAY PROSPECT RD 3.14 0.04

69 SHIELDS ST DRAKE RD 3.13 0.04

70 TAFT HILL RD ELIZABETH ST 3.13 0.04

71 ZIEGLER HARMONY RD 3.12 0.04

72 LEMAY DRAKE RD 3.11 0.04

73 LEMAY MULBERRY ST 3.08 0.04

74 LOOMIS MULBERRY ST 3.08 0.04

75 REMINGTON PROSPECT 2.93 0.04

76 COLLEGE AV OLIVE 2.93 0.04

77 COLLEGE AV MAGNOLIA 2.8 0.04

78 COLLEGE AV MAPLE/JEFFERSON 2.8 0.04

79 COLLEGE AV HARMONY RD 2.79 0.04

80 SHIELDS ST ELIZABETH ST 2.75 0.04

81 SHIELDS ST MULBERRY ST 2.74 0.04

82 SNOW MESA HARMONY RD 2.74 0.04

83 MCMURRY HARMONY RD 2.71 0.04

84 ZIEGLER ROCK CREEK 2.69 0.04

85 REMINGTON MULBERRY ST 2.69 0.04

86 STOVER DRAKE 2.69 0.04

87 RESEARCH/MEADOW LARK DRAKE 2.69 0.04

88 COLLEGE AV RUTGERS 2.64 0.04

89 CORBETT HARMONY RD 2.62 0.04

90 COLLEGE AV LAPORTE 2.5 0.03

91 COLLEGE AV MULBERRY ST 2.47 0.03

92 TAFT HILL RD HARMONY RD 2.29 0.03

93 LEMAY RIVERSIDE 2.17 0.03

94 RIVERSIDE AV MULBERRY ST 2.06 0.03

95 COLLEGE AV WILLOX 2.04 0.03

96 RIVERSIDE AV PROSPECT RD 1.93 0.03

97 COLLEGE AV CHERRY 1.9 0.03

98 MASON ST HORSETOOTH RD 1.82 0.03

189

Rank Intersection Name N-CSL Weighted 99 LEMAY FOSSIL CREEK 1 0.01

100 LEMAY BOARDWALK 1 0.01

101 TIMBERLINE RD BATTLE CREEK 1 0.01

102 LINDEN JEFFERSON 1 0.01

103 TIMBERLINE RD CUSTER 1 0.01

104 COLLEGE AV SPRING PARK 1 0.01

105 COLLEGE AV STUART 1 0.01

106 YORKSHIRE DRAKE 0 0

Note: Intersections highlighted in yellow are referred to current RLC locations.

190

Table 55 Fort Collins intersections ranked based on crash severity level.

Rank Intersection Name CSL Weighted

1 COLLEGE AV MONROE 624 0.15

2 TIMBERLINE RD HORSETOOTH RD 613 0.15

3 COLLEGE AV HORSETOOTH RD 603 0.14

4 LEMAY HARMONY RD 596 0.14

5 COLLEGE AV PROSPECT RD 484 0.12

6 BOARDWALK DR HARMONY RD 477 0.11

7 SHIELDS ST PLUM 450 0.11

8 SHIELDS ST PROSPECT RD 446 0.11

9 COLLEGE AV DRAKE RD 407 0.10

10 TIMBERLINE RD HARMONY RD 348 0.08

11 COLLEGE AV HARMONY RD 337 0.08

12 TIMBERLINE RD DRAKE RD 330 0.08

13 COLLEGE AV TRILBY RD 325 0.08

14 COLLEGE AV LAUREL 309 0.07

15 SHIELDS ST HORSETOOTH RD 308 0.07

16 SHIELDS ST HARMONY RD 279 0.07

17 COLLEGE AV BOARDWALK 274 0.07

18 TIMBERLINE RD PROSPECT RD 268 0.06

19 SHIELDS ST SWALLOW 260 0.06

20 TAFT HILL RD DRAKE RD 256 0.06

21 COLLEGE AV MOUNTAIN 240 0.06

22 LEMAY MULBERRY ST 240 0.06

23 SHIELDS ST DRAKE RD 238 0.06

24 COLLEGE AV FOOTHILLS 230 0.06

25 COLLEGE AV MULBERRY ST 227 0.05

26 SHIELDS ST ELIZABETH ST 212 0.05

27 LEMAY DRAKE RD 199 0.05

28 LEMAY PROSPECT RD 198 0.05

29 SHIELDS ST RAINTREE 193 0.05

30 COLLEGE AV SWALLOW 188 0.05

31 MASON ST HARMONY RD 182 0.04

32 MCMURRY HARMONY RD 171 0.04

33 SHIELDS ST MULBERRY ST 170 0.04

34 ZIEGLER HARMONY RD 159 0.04

35 COLLEGE AV TROUTMAN 154 0.04

36 TAFT HILL RD PROSPECT RD 151 0.04

37 JFK HARMONY RD 151 0.04

38 CORBETT HARMONY RD 131 0.03

39 COLLEGE AV COLUMBIA 128 0.03

40 TAFT HILL RD ELIZABETH ST 119 0.03

41 TAFT HILL RD HORSETOOTH RD 115 0.03

42 COLLEGE AV KENSINGTON 111 0.03

43 COLLEGE AV HARVARD 106 0.03

44 COLLEGE AV FOSSIL CREEK 105 0.03

45 RIVERSIDE AV MULBERRY ST 105 0.03

46 JFK HORSETOOTH RD 104 0.03

47 COLLEGE AV BOCKMAN 104 0.03

48 TAFT HILL RD MULBERRY ST 103 0.02

191

Rank Intersection Name CSL Weighted 49 LEMAY STUART 103 0.02

50 LEMAY RIVERSIDE 100 0.02

51 LEMAY PENNOCK 97 0.02

52 CITY PARK ELIZABETH ST 90 0.02

53 COLLEGE AV RUTGERS 87 0.02

54 REMINGTON MULBERRY ST 86 0.02

55 SNOW MESA HARMONY RD 85 0.02

56 MANHATTAN HORSETOOTH RD 79 0.02

57 JFK BOARDWALK 77 0.02

58 CENTRE PROSPECT 77 0.02

59 TIMBERLINE RD TIMBERWOOD 75 0.02

60 COLLEGE AV PITKIN 75 0.02

61 TIMBERLINE RD CARIBOU 70 0.02

62 LEMAY OAKRIDGE 68 0.02

63 MELDRUM MULBERRY ST 68 0.02

64 WHITCOMB PROSPECT 67 0.02

65 TIMBERLINE RD VERMONT 65 0.02

66 LEMAY ELIZABETH ST 65 0.02

67 WORTHINGTON DRAKE 62 0.01

68 SHIELDS ST ROLLAND MOORE 61 0.01

69 MASON ST HORSETOOTH RD 60 0.01

70 COLLEGE AV CHERRY 57 0.01

71 RIVERSIDE AV PROSPECT RD 56 0.01

72 COLLEGE AV WILLOX 53 0.01

73 TAFT HILL RD HARMONY RD 48 0.01

74 COLLEGE AV LAPORTE 45 0.01

75 ZIEGLER ROCK CREEK 43 0.01

76 STOVER DRAKE 43 0.01

77 RESEARCH/MEADOW LARK DRAKE 43 0.01

78 COLLEGE AV MAGNOLIA 42 0.01

79 COLLEGE AV MAPLE/JEFFERSON 42 0.01

80 REMINGTON PROSPECT 41 0.01

81 COLLEGE AV OLIVE 41 0.01

82 LOOMIS MULBERRY ST 40 0.01

83 ZIEGLER COUNCIL TREE 39 0.01

84 COLLEGE AV SKYWAY 39 0.01

85 STANFORD HORSETOOTH RD 39 0.01

86 TIMBERLINE RD NANCY GRAY 37 0.01

87 RIVERSIDE AV MOUNTAIN 37 0.01

88 LEMAY DOCTORS LN 37 0.01

89 LADY MOON HARMONY RD 35 0.01

90 CONSTITUTION ELIZABETH ST 34 0.01

91 STARFLOWER HARMONY RD 34 0.01

92 JFK TROUTMAN 33 0.01

93 SHIELDS ST ROCKY MOUNTAIN 33 0.01

94 WHEDBEE MULBERRY ST 33 0.01

95 TAFT HILL RD VALLEY FORGE 32 0.01

96 LEMAY SOUTHRIDGE 31 0.01

97 TRADITION HORSETOOTH RD 31 0.01

98 LEMAY ROBERTSON 29 0.01

192

Rank Intersection Name CSL Weighted 99 COLLEGE AV STUART 16 0.00

100 COLLEGE AV SPRING PARK 10 0.00

101 TIMBERLINE RD BATTLE CREEK 9 0.00

102 TIMBERLINE RD CUSTER 7 0.00

103 LEMAY FOSSIL CREEK 3 0.00

104 LEMAY BOARDWALK 3 0.00

105 LINDEN JEFFERSON 1 0.00

106 YORKSHIRE DRAKE 0 0

Note: Intersections highlighted in yellow are referred to current RLC locations.

193

Table 56 Analysis for potential for improvement for all intersections of Fort Collins in relation to crash rate and frequency.

Est'd.

Total Annual Annual Est'd. Annual PFI PFI

Inter # Intersection Name AADT (09-12) Crashes Crashes Crash Rate Crash Rate Crashes Crash Rate Crash Freq

1 LEMAY HARMONY RD 55800 119 39.7 1.95 1.07 21.7 0.88 18.0

2 TIMBERLINE RD HORSETOOTH RD 50500 100 33.3 1.81 0.95 17.5 0.86 15.8

3 COLLEGE AV TRILBY RD 43556 82 27.3 1.72 0.80 12.7 0.92 14.6

4 BOARDWALK DR HARMONY RD 51019 72 24.0 1.29 0.96 17.9 0.33 6.1

5 SHIELDS ST PLUM 36000 54 18.0 1.37 0.64 8.4 0.73 9.6

6 TIMBERLINE RD DRAKE RD 44750 78 26.0 1.59 0.83 13.5 0.77 12.5

7 SHIELDS ST ELIZABETH ST 44750 77 25.7 1.57 0.83 13.5 0.75 12.2

8 SHIELDS ST SWALLOW 38600 35 11.7 0.83 0.70 9.8 0.13 1.9

9 TIMBERLINE RD PROSPECT RD 53850 79 26.3 1.34 1.02 20.1 0.32 6.2

10 SHIELDS ST HARMONY RD 37450 45 15.0 1.10 0.67 9.2 0.43 5.8

11 SHIELDS ST MULBERRY ST 36150 62 20.7 1.57 0.65 8.5 0.92 12.2

12 SHIELDS ST PROSPECT RD 55200 77 25.7 1.27 1.05 21.2 0.22 4.5

13 TAFT HILL RD HORSETOOTH RD 27700 34 11.3 1.12 0.47 4.8 0.65 6.5

14 CITY PARK ELIZABETH ST 22750 9 3.0 0.36 0.38 3.1 -0.02 -0.1

15 TAFT HILL RD PROSPECT RD 32950 43 14.3 1.19 0.58 7.0 0.61 7.4

16 COLLEGE AV MOUNTAIN 32445 42 14.0 1.18 0.57 6.7 0.61 7.3

17 SHIELDS ST HORSETOOTH RD 48950 56 18.7 1.04 0.92 16.4 0.13 2.3

18 MASON ST HARMONY RD 38850 47 15.7 1.10 0.70 9.9 0.40 5.7

19 COLLEGE AV HARMONY RD 70836 121 40.3 1.56 1.40 36.3 0.16 4.0

20 MCMURRY HARMONY RD 48650 63 21.0 1.18 0.91 16.1 0.27 4.9

21 LEMAY DRAKE RD 44200 64 21.3 1.32 0.81 13.1 0.51 8.2

22 TAFT HILL RD DRAKE RD 40900 58 19.3 1.30 0.74 11.1 0.55 8.2

23 TAFT HILL RD MULBERRY ST 27200 22 7.3 0.74 0.46 4.6 0.27 2.7

24 ZIEGLER ROCK CREEK 11000 16 5.3 1.33 0.16 0.7 1.17 4.7

25 SHIELDS ST DRAKE RD 56500 76 25.3 1.23 1.08 22.3 0.15 3.0

194

Est'd.

Total Annual Annual Est'd. Annual PFI PFI

Inter # Intersection Name AADT (09-12) Crashes Crashes Crash Rate Crash Rate Crashes Crash Rate Crash Freq

26 JFK BOARDWALK 22200 23 7.7 0.95 0.37 3.0 0.58 4.7

27 SHIELDS ST ROLLAND MOORE 32050 7 2.3 0.20 0.56 6.6 -0.36 -4.2

28 TIMBERLINE RD NANCY GRAY 30050 10 3.3 0.30 0.52 5.7 -0.22 -2.4

29 COLLEGE AV FOSSIL CREEK 39000 24 8.0 0.56 0.70 10.0 -0.14 -2.0

30 LEMAY MULBERRY ST 54550 78 26.0 1.31 1.04 20.7 0.27 5.3

31 COLLEGE AV MULBERRY ST 53932 92 30.7 1.56 1.02 20.2 0.53 10.5

32 JFK HARMONY RD 42850 43 14.3 0.92 0.79 12.3 0.13 2.1

33 LEMAY OAKRIDGE 20950 14 4.7 0.61 0.34 2.6 0.27 2.0

34 CONSTITUTION ELIZABETH ST 18800 7 2.3 0.34 0.30 2.1 0.04 0.3

35 JFK TROUTMAN 14200 6 2.0 0.39 0.22 1.1 0.17 0.9

36 LOOMIS MULBERRY ST 23450 13 4.3 0.51 0.39 3.4 0.11 1.0

37 TAFT HILL RD ELIZABETH ST 34850 38 12.7 1.00 0.62 7.9 0.38 4.8

38 LEMAY STUART 33450 22 7.3 0.60 0.59 7.2 0.01 0.1

39 MELDRUM MULBERRY ST 24100 14 4.7 0.53 0.40 3.6 0.13 1.1

40 LEMAY SOUTHRIDGE 16450 4 1.3 0.22 0.26 1.6 -0.04 -0.2

41 WORTHINGTON DRAKE 26100 8 2.7 0.28 0.44 4.2 -0.16 -1.6

42 TIMBERLINE RD CARIBOU 32400 16 5.3 0.45 0.57 6.7 -0.12 -1.4

43 TAFT HILL RD VALLEY FORGE 22250 5 1.7 0.21 0.37 3.0 -0.16 -1.3

44 RIVERSIDE AV MOUNTAIN 21550 10 3.3 0.42 0.36 2.8 0.07 0.5

45 SHIELDS ST ROCKY MOUNTAIN 33650 6 2.0 0.16 0.59 7.3 -0.43 -5.3

46 YORKSHIRE DRAKE 14150 2 0.7 0.13 0.22 1.1 -0.09 -0.5

47 TIMBERLINE RD VERMONT 36000 11 3.7 0.28 0.64 8.4 -0.36 -4.8

48 LEMAY FOSSIL CREEK 14800 3 1.0 0.19 0.23 1.2 -0.04 -0.2

49 LEMAY PENNOCK 30900 16 5.3 0.47 0.54 6.1 -0.07 -0.7

50 REMINGTON MULBERRY ST 30850 32 10.7 0.95 0.54 6.1 0.41 4.6

51 LEMAY BOARDWALK 17250 3 1.0 0.16 0.27 1.7 -0.12 -0.7

195

Est'd.

Total Annual Annual Est'd. Annual PFI PFI

Inter # Intersection Name AADT (09-12) Crashes Crashes Crash Rate Crash Rate Crashes Crash Rate Crash Freq

52 WHITCOMB PROSPECT 27350 13 4.3 0.43 0.47 4.7 -0.03 -0.3

53 LEMAY ROBERTSON 30900 2 0.7 0.06 0.54 6.1 -0.48 -5.4

54 MANHATTAN HORSETOOTH RD 32650 25 8.3 0.70 0.57 6.8 0.13 1.5

55 TRADITION HORSETOOTH RD 25600 4 1.3 0.14 0.43 4.0 -0.29 -2.7

56 STARFLOWER HARMONY RD 22300 7 2.3 0.29 0.37 3.0 -0.08 -0.7

57 TIMBERLINE RD BATTLE CREEK 20250 9 3.0 0.41 0.33 2.4 0.08 0.6

58 ZIEGLER COUNCIL TREE 23000 12 4.0 0.48 0.38 3.2 0.09 0.8

59 WHEDBEE MULBERRY ST 27350 6 2.0 0.20 0.47 4.7 -0.27 -2.7

60 LEMAY PROSPECT RD 51600 63 21.0 1.12 0.97 18.3 0.14 2.7

61 LEMAY RIVERSIDE 33700 46 15.3 1.25 0.60 7.3 0.65 8.0

62 CENTRE PROSPECT 32608 23 7.7 0.64 0.57 6.8 0.07 0.8

63 STOVER DRAKE 26550 16 5.3 0.55 0.45 4.4 0.10 1.0

64 TAFT HILL RD HARMONY RD 26000 21 7.0 0.74 0.44 4.2 0.30 2.8

65 REMINGTON PROSPECT 28100 14 4.7 0.45 0.48 4.9 -0.03 -0.3

66 COLLEGE AV OLIVE 27200 14 4.7 0.47 0.46 4.6 0.01 0.1

67 COLLEGE AV SKYWAY 33400 12 4.0 0.33 0.59 7.2 -0.26 -3.2

68 COLLEGE AV CHERRY 34098 30 10.0 0.80 0.60 7.5 0.20 2.5

69 COLLEGE AV LAPORTE 27450 18 6.0 0.60 0.47 4.7 0.13 1.3

70 LEMAY ELIZABETH ST 31950 11 3.7 0.31 0.56 6.5 -0.25 -2.9

71 RIVERSIDE AV MULBERRY ST 37950 51 17.0 1.23 0.68 9.5 0.54 7.5

72 COLLEGE AV MAGNOLIA 28900 15 5.0 0.47 0.50 5.3 -0.02 -0.3

73 COLLEGE AV WILLOX 30250 26 8.7 0.78 0.53 5.8 0.26 2.9

74 LINDEN JEFFERSON 20850 1 0.3 0.04 0.34 2.6 -0.30 -2.3

75 LEMAY DOCTORS LN 30500 10 3.3 0.30 0.53 5.9 -0.23 -2.6

76 RESEARCH/MEADOW LARK DRAKE 30550 16 5.3 0.48 0.53 5.9 -0.05 -0.6

77 STANFORD HORSETOOTH RD 32200 12 4.0 0.34 0.56 6.6 -0.22 -2.6

196

Est'd.

Total Annual Annual Est'd. Annual PFI PFI

Inter # Intersection Name AADT (09-12) Crashes Crashes Crash Rate Crash Rate Crashes Crash Rate Crash Freq

78 TIMBERLINE RD TIMBERWOOD 32100 21 7.0 0.60 0.56 6.6 0.03 0.4

79 COLLEGE AV MAPLE/JEFFERSON 30346 15 5.0 0.45 0.53 5.8 -0.08 -0.8

80 SHIELDS ST RAINTREE 40850 22 7.3 0.49 0.74 11.1 -0.25 -3.7

81 MASON ST HORSETOOTH RD 35450 33 11.0 0.85 0.63 8.2 0.22 2.8

82 JFK HORSETOOTH RD 37700 23 7.7 0.56 0.68 9.3 -0.12 -1.7

83 RIVERSIDE AV PROSPECT RD 33450 29 9.7 0.79 0.59 7.2 0.20 2.5

84 TIMBERLINE RD CUSTER 38600 7 2.3 0.17 0.70 9.8 -0.53 -7.5

85 COLLEGE AV MONROE 49850 111 37.0 2.03 0.94 17.0 1.10 20.0

86 COLLEGE AV DRAKE RD 75900 92 30.7 1.11 1.52 42.1 -0.41 -11.4

87 TIMBERLINE RD HARMONY RD 65850 78 26.0 1.08 1.29 31.0 -0.21 -5.0

88 COLLEGE AV HORSETOOTH RD 71550 153 51.0 1.95 1.42 37.1 0.53 13.9

89 COLLEGE AV FOOTHILLS 48550 68 22.7 1.28 0.91 16.1 0.37 6.6

90 CORBETT HARMONY RD 34400 50 16.7 1.33 0.61 7.7 0.72 9.0

91 COLLEGE AV LAUREL 48542 57 19.0 1.07 0.91 16.1 0.17 2.9

92 COLLEGE AV HARVARD 45800 25 8.3 0.50 0.85 14.2 -0.35 -5.8

93 COLLEGE AV BOCKMAN 48150 23 7.7 0.44 0.90 15.8 -0.46 -8.1

94 SNOW MESA HARMONY RD 36800 31 10.3 0.77 0.66 8.8 0.11 1.5

95 ZIEGLER HARMONY RD 43250 51 17.0 1.08 0.79 12.5 0.28 4.5

96 COLLEGE AV KENSINGTON 42850 30 10.0 0.64 0.79 12.3 -0.15 -2.3

97 COLLEGE AV BOARDWALK 52664 49 16.3 0.85 1.00 19.2 -0.15 -2.8

98 COLLEGE AV RUTGERS 47150 33 11.0 0.64 0.88 15.1 -0.24 -4.1

99 COLLEGE AV SWALLOW 53809 53 17.7 0.90 1.02 20.1 -0.12 -2.4

100 COLLEGE AV COLUMBIA 48200 20 6.7 0.38 0.90 15.8 -0.52 -9.2

101 LADY MOON HARMONY RD 36150 8 2.7 0.20 0.65 8.5 -0.44 -5.8

102 COLLEGE AV TROUTMAN 50400 46 15.3 0.83 0.95 17.4 -0.11 -2.1

103 COLLEGE AV PITKIN 42950 21 7.0 0.45 0.79 12.3 -0.34 -5.3

197

Est'd.

Total Annual Annual Est'd. Annual PFI PFI

Inter # Intersection Name AADT (09-12) Crashes Crashes Crash Rate Crash Rate Crashes Crash Rate Crash Freq

104 COLLEGE AV SPRING PARK 46400 10 3.3 0.20 0.86 14.6 -0.66 -11.2

105 COLLEGE AV PROSPECT RD 72882 115 38.3 1.44 1.45 38.6 -0.01 -0.3

106 COLLEGE AV STUART 47000 16 5.3 0.31 0.87 15.0 -0.56 -9.7

Total 3922187 3805 0.78

Average 0.89

Note: Intersections highlighted in yellow are referred to current RLC locations.

198

Table 57 Fort Collins intersections ranked based on potential for improvement in relation to crash rate.

PFI

Rank Intersection Name Crash Rate Weighted

1 ZIEGLER ROCK CREEK 1.17 0.350

2 COLLEGE AV MONROE 1.10 0.330

3 SHIELDS ST MULBERRY ST 0.92 0.277

4 COLLEGE AV TRILBY RD 0.92 0.276

5 LEMAY HARMONY RD 0.88 0.265

6 TIMBERLINE RD HORSETOOTH RD 0.86 0.258

7 TIMBERLINE RD DRAKE RD 0.77 0.230

8 SHIELDS ST ELIZABETH ST 0.75 0.224

9 SHIELDS ST PLUM 0.73 0.219

10 CORBETT HARMONY RD 0.72 0.216

11 LEMAY RIVERSIDE 0.65 0.196

12 TAFT HILL RD HORSETOOTH RD 0.65 0.194

13 COLLEGE AV MOUNTAIN 0.61 0.184

14 TAFT HILL RD PROSPECT RD 0.61 0.184

15 JFK BOARDWALK 0.58 0.174

16 TAFT HILL RD DRAKE RD 0.55 0.165

17 RIVERSIDE AV MULBERRY ST 0.54 0.164

18 COLLEGE AV MULBERRY ST 0.53 0.160

19 COLLEGE AV HORSETOOTH RD 0.53 0.160

20 LEMAY DRAKE RD 0.51 0.153

21 SHIELDS ST HARMONY RD 0.43 0.128

22 REMINGTON MULBERRY ST 0.41 0.123

23 MASON ST HARMONY RD 0.40 0.121

24 TAFT HILL RD ELIZABETH ST 0.38 0.113

25 COLLEGE AV FOOTHILLS 0.37 0.112

26 BOARDWALK DR HARMONY RD 0.33 0.099

27 TIMBERLINE RD PROSPECT RD 0.32 0.095

28 TAFT HILL RD HARMONY RD 0.30 0.089

29 ZIEGLER HARMONY RD 0.28 0.085

30 TAFT HILL RD MULBERRY ST 0.27 0.082

31 MCMURRY HARMONY RD 0.27 0.082

32 LEMAY MULBERRY ST 0.27 0.080

33 LEMAY OAKRIDGE 0.27 0.080

34 COLLEGE AV WILLOX 0.26 0.078

35 SHIELDS ST PROSPECT RD 0.22 0.067

36 MASON ST HORSETOOTH RD 0.22 0.066

37 RIVERSIDE AV PROSPECT RD 0.20 0.061

199

PFI

Rank Intersection Name Crash Rate Weighted

38 COLLEGE AV CHERRY 0.20 0.060

39 JFK TROUTMAN 0.17 0.050

40 COLLEGE AV LAUREL 0.17 0.050

41 COLLEGE AV HARMONY RD 0.16 0.047

42 SHIELDS ST DRAKE RD 0.15 0.044

43 LEMAY PROSPECT RD 0.14 0.043

44 SHIELDS ST SWALLOW 0.13 0.040

45 JFK HARMONY RD 0.13 0.039

46 COLLEGE AV LAPORTE 0.13 0.039

47 SHIELDS ST HORSETOOTH RD 0.13 0.039

48 MELDRUM MULBERRY ST 0.13 0.038

49 MANHATTAN HORSETOOTH RD 0.13 0.038

50 LOOMIS MULBERRY ST 0.11 0.035

51 SNOW MESA HARMONY RD 0.11 0.033

52 STOVER DRAKE 0.10 0.030

53 ZIEGLER COUNCIL TREE 0.09 0.028

54 TIMBERLINE RD BATTLE CREEK 0.08 0.023

55 CENTRE PROSPECT 0.07 0.021

56 RIVERSIDE AV MOUNTAIN 0.07 0.021

57 CONSTITUTION ELIZABETH ST 0.04 0.011

58 TIMBERLINE RD TIMBERWOOD 0.03 0.010

59 LEMAY STUART 0.01 0.003

60 COLLEGE AV OLIVE 0.01 0.002

61 COLLEGE AV PROSPECT RD -0.01 -0.003

62 CITY PARK ELIZABETH ST -0.02 -0.005

63 COLLEGE AV MAGNOLIA -0.02 -0.007

64 REMINGTON PROSPECT -0.03 -0.008

65 WHITCOMB PROSPECT -0.03 -0.010

66 LEMAY SOUTHRIDGE -0.04 -0.011

67 LEMAY FOSSIL CREEK -0.04 -0.013

68 RESEARCH/MEADOW LARK DRAKE -0.05 -0.016

69 LEMAY PENNOCK -0.07 -0.020

70 COLLEGE AV MAPLE/JEFFERSON -0.08 -0.023

71 STARFLOWER HARMONY RD -0.08 -0.025

72 YORKSHIRE DRAKE -0.09 -0.027

73 COLLEGE AV TROUTMAN -0.11 -0.034

74 LEMAY BOARDWALK -0.12 -0.035

75 TIMBERLINE RD CARIBOU -0.12 -0.035

76 JFK HORSETOOTH RD -0.12 -0.036

200

PFI

Rank Intersection Name Crash Rate Weighted

77 COLLEGE AV SWALLOW -0.12 -0.037

78 COLLEGE AV FOSSIL CREEK -0.14 -0.043

79 COLLEGE AV KENSINGTON -0.15 -0.044

80 COLLEGE AV BOARDWALK -0.15 -0.044

81 WORTHINGTON DRAKE -0.16 -0.049

82 TAFT HILL RD VALLEY FORGE -0.16 -0.049

83 TIMBERLINE RD HARMONY RD -0.21 -0.063

84 TIMBERLINE RD NANCY GRAY -0.22 -0.065

85 STANFORD HORSETOOTH RD -0.22 -0.067

86 LEMAY DOCTORS LN -0.23 -0.069

87 COLLEGE AV RUTGERS -0.24 -0.071

88 LEMAY ELIZABETH ST -0.25 -0.074

89 SHIELDS ST RAINTREE -0.25 -0.076

90 COLLEGE AV SKYWAY -0.26 -0.078

91 WHEDBEE MULBERRY ST -0.27 -0.080

92 TRADITION HORSETOOTH RD -0.29 -0.087

93 LINDEN JEFFERSON -0.30 -0.090

94 COLLEGE AV PITKIN -0.34 -0.102

95 COLLEGE AV HARVARD -0.35 -0.105

96 SHIELDS ST ROLLAND MOORE -0.36 -0.109

97 TIMBERLINE RD VERMONT -0.36 -0.109

98 COLLEGE AV DRAKE RD -0.41 -0.124

99 SHIELDS ST ROCKY MOUNTAIN -0.43 -0.130

100 LADY MOON HARMONY RD -0.44 -0.133

101 COLLEGE AV BOCKMAN -0.46 -0.139

102 LEMAY ROBERTSON -0.48 -0.144

103 COLLEGE AV COLUMBIA -0.52 -0.156

104 TIMBERLINE RD CUSTER -0.53 -0.159

105 COLLEGE AV STUART -0.56 -0.169

106 COLLEGE AV SPRING PARK -0.66 -0.200

Note: Intersections highlighted in yellow are referred to current RLC locations

201

Table 58 Fort Collins intersections ranked based on potential for improvement in relation to crash

frequency

PFI

Rank Intersection Name Crash Freq Weighted

1 COLLEGE AV MONROE 20.0 0.250

2 LEMAY HARMONY RD 18.0 0.225

3 TIMBERLINE RD HORSETOOTH RD 15.8 0.198

4 COLLEGE AV TRILBY RD 14.6 0.183

5 COLLEGE AV HORSETOOTH RD 13.9 0.174

6 TIMBERLINE RD DRAKE RD 12.5 0.157

7 SHIELDS ST ELIZABETH ST 12.2 0.152

8 SHIELDS ST MULBERRY ST 12.2 0.152

9 COLLEGE AV MULBERRY ST 10.5 0.131

10 SHIELDS ST PLUM 9.6 0.120

11 CORBETT HARMONY RD 9.0 0.113

12 TAFT HILL RD DRAKE RD 8.2 0.103

13 LEMAY DRAKE RD 8.2 0.103

14 LEMAY RIVERSIDE 8.0 0.100

15 RIVERSIDE AV MULBERRY ST 7.5 0.094

16 TAFT HILL RD PROSPECT RD 7.4 0.092

17 COLLEGE AV MOUNTAIN 7.3 0.091

18 COLLEGE AV FOOTHILLS 6.6 0.082

19 TAFT HILL RD HORSETOOTH RD 6.5 0.082

20 TIMBERLINE RD PROSPECT RD 6.2 0.078

21 BOARDWALK DR HARMONY RD 6.1 0.076

22 SHIELDS ST HARMONY RD 5.8 0.073

23 MASON ST HARMONY RD 5.7 0.072

24 LEMAY MULBERRY ST 5.3 0.067

25 MCMURRY HARMONY RD 4.9 0.061

26 TAFT HILL RD ELIZABETH ST 4.8 0.060

27 JFK BOARDWALK 4.7 0.059

28 ZIEGLER ROCK CREEK 4.7 0.059

29 REMINGTON MULBERRY ST 4.6 0.058

30 ZIEGLER HARMONY RD 4.5 0.056

31 SHIELDS ST PROSPECT RD 4.5 0.056

32 COLLEGE AV HARMONY RD 4.0 0.051

33 SHIELDS ST DRAKE RD 3.0 0.038

34 COLLEGE AV LAUREL 2.9 0.037

35 COLLEGE AV WILLOX 2.9 0.036

36 MASON ST HORSETOOTH RD 2.8 0.035

37 TAFT HILL RD HARMONY RD 2.8 0.035

202

PFI

Rank Intersection Name Crash Freq Weighted

38 TAFT HILL RD MULBERRY ST 2.7 0.034

39 LEMAY PROSPECT RD 2.7 0.033

40 COLLEGE AV CHERRY 2.5 0.031

41 RIVERSIDE AV PROSPECT RD 2.5 0.031

42 SHIELDS ST HORSETOOTH RD 2.3 0.029

43 JFK HARMONY RD 2.1 0.026

44 LEMAY OAKRIDGE 2.0 0.026

45 SHIELDS ST SWALLOW 1.9 0.023

46 MANHATTAN HORSETOOTH RD 1.5 0.019

47 SNOW MESA HARMONY RD 1.5 0.019

48 COLLEGE AV LAPORTE 1.3 0.016

49 MELDRUM MULBERRY ST 1.1 0.014

50 LOOMIS MULBERRY ST 1.0 0.012

51 STOVER DRAKE 1.0 0.012

52 JFK TROUTMAN 0.9 0.011

53 CENTRE PROSPECT 0.8 0.011

54 ZIEGLER COUNCIL TREE 0.8 0.010

55 TIMBERLINE RD BATTLE CREEK 0.6 0.007

56 RIVERSIDE AV MOUNTAIN 0.5 0.007

57 TIMBERLINE RD TIMBERWOOD 0.4 0.005

58 CONSTITUTION ELIZABETH ST 0.3 0.003

59 LEMAY STUART 0.1 0.002

60 COLLEGE AV OLIVE 0.1 0.001

61 CITY PARK ELIZABETH ST -0.1 -0.002

62 LEMAY SOUTHRIDGE -0.2 -0.003

63 LEMAY FOSSIL CREEK -0.2 -0.003

64 COLLEGE AV PROSPECT RD -0.3 -0.003

65 COLLEGE AV MAGNOLIA -0.3 -0.003

66 REMINGTON PROSPECT -0.3 -0.004

67 WHITCOMB PROSPECT -0.3 -0.004

68 YORKSHIRE DRAKE -0.5 -0.006

69 RESEARCH/MEADOW LARK DRAKE -0.6 -0.007

70 STARFLOWER HARMONY RD -0.7 -0.008

71 LEMAY BOARDWALK -0.7 -0.009

72 LEMAY PENNOCK -0.7 -0.009

73 COLLEGE AV MAPLE/JEFFERSON -0.8 -0.011

74 TAFT HILL RD VALLEY FORGE -1.3 -0.017

75 TIMBERLINE RD CARIBOU -1.4 -0.017

76 WORTHINGTON DRAKE -1.6 -0.019

203

PFI

Rank Intersection Name Crash Freq Weighted

77 JFK HORSETOOTH RD -1.7 -0.021

78 COLLEGE AV FOSSIL CREEK -2.0 -0.025

79 COLLEGE AV TROUTMAN -2.1 -0.026

80 LINDEN JEFFERSON -2.3 -0.028

81 COLLEGE AV KENSINGTON -2.3 -0.029

82 TIMBERLINE RD NANCY GRAY -2.4 -0.030

83 COLLEGE AV SWALLOW -2.4 -0.030

84 LEMAY DOCTORS LN -2.6 -0.032

85 STANFORD HORSETOOTH RD -2.6 -0.033

86 WHEDBEE MULBERRY ST -2.7 -0.033

87 TRADITION HORSETOOTH RD -2.7 -0.034

88 COLLEGE AV BOARDWALK -2.8 -0.035

89 LEMAY ELIZABETH ST -2.9 -0.036

90 COLLEGE AV SKYWAY -3.2 -0.040

91 SHIELDS ST RAINTREE -3.7 -0.047

92 COLLEGE AV RUTGERS -4.1 -0.051

93 SHIELDS ST ROLLAND MOORE -4.2 -0.053

94 TIMBERLINE RD VERMONT -4.8 -0.060

95 TIMBERLINE RD HARMONY RD -5.0 -0.063

96 SHIELDS ST ROCKY MOUNTAIN -5.3 -0.066

97 COLLEGE AV PITKIN -5.3 -0.067

98 LEMAY ROBERTSON -5.4 -0.068

99 COLLEGE AV HARVARD -5.8 -0.073

100 LADY MOON HARMONY RD -5.8 -0.073

101 TIMBERLINE RD CUSTER -7.5 -0.094

102 COLLEGE AV BOCKMAN -8.1 -0.102

103 COLLEGE AV COLUMBIA -9.2 -0.115

104 COLLEGE AV STUART -9.7 -0.121

105 COLLEGE AV SPRING PARK -11.2 -0.141

106 COLLEGE AV DRAKE RD -11.4 -0.143

Note: Intersections highlighted in yellow are referred to current RLC locations

204

Table 59 Analysis of Fort Collins intersections based on crash types

Inters # Intersection Front to side Rate Rear end Rate Other Total Accidents Total volume

Major Street Minor Street

1 LEMAY HARMONY RD 9 0.25 103 2.87 7 119 55800

2 TIMBERLINE RD HORSETOOTH RD 27 0.75 64 1.78 9 100 50500

3 COLLEGE AV TRILBY RD 29 0.81 50 1.39 3 82 43556

4 BOARDWALK DR HARMONY RD 21 0.59 48 1.34 3 72 51019

5 SHIELDS ST PLUM 10 0.28 44 1.23 0 54 36000

6 TIMBERLINE RD DRAKE RD 23 0.64 48 1.34 7 78 44750

7 SHIELDS ST ELIZABETH ST 13 0.36 55 1.53 9 77 44750

8 SHIELDS ST SWALLOW 8 0.22 24 0.67 3 35 38600

9 TIMBERLINE RD PROSPECT RD 9 0.25 65 1.81 5 79 53850

10 SHIELDS ST HARMONY RD 11 0.31 28 0.78 6 45 37450

11 SHIELDS ST MULBERRY ST 18 0.50 29 0.81 15 62 36150

12 SHIELDS ST PROSPECT RD 29 0.81 43 1.20 5 77 55200

13 TAFT HILL RD HORSETOOTH RD 11 0.31 20 0.56 3 34 27700

14 CITY PARK ELIZABETH ST 4 0.11 5 0.14 0 9 22750

15 TAFT HILL RD PROSPECT RD 10 0.28 27 0.75 6 43 32950

16 COLLEGE AV MOUNTAIN 6 0.17 35 0.98 1 42 32445

17 SHIELDS ST HORSETOOTH RD 21 0.59 28 0.78 7 56 48950

18 MASON ST HARMONY RD 7 0.20 37 1.03 3 47 38850

19 COLLEGE AV HARMONY RD 13 0.36 97 2.70 11 121 70836

20 MCMURRY HARMONY RD 7 0.20 55 1.53 1 63 48650

21 LEMAY DRAKE RD 22 0.61 36 1.00 6 64 44200

22 TAFT HILL RD DRAKE RD 18 0.50 34 0.95 6 58 40900

23 TAFT HILL RD MULBERRY ST 11 0.31 9 0.25 2 22 27200

24 ZIEGLER ROCK CREEK 3 0.08 13 0.36 0 16 11000

25 SHIELDS ST DRAKE RD 15 0.42 54 1.50 7 76 56500

26 JFK BOARDWALK 8 0.22 9 0.25 6 23 22200

27 SHIELDS ST ROLLAND MOORE 2 0.06 5 0.14 0 7 32050

28 TIMBERLINE RD NANCY GRAY 1 0.03 9 0.25 0 10 30050

29 COLLEGE AV FOSSIL CREEK 1 0.03 21 0.59 2 24 39000

30 LEMAY MULBERRY ST 13 0.36 59 1.64 6 78 54550

31 COLLEGE AV MULBERRY ST 22 0.61 56 1.56 14 92 53932

32 JFK HARMONY RD 6 0.17 35 0.98 2 43 42850

33 LEMAY OAKRIDGE 8 0.22 6 0.17 0 14 20950

205

Inters # Intersection Front to side Rate Rear end Rate Other Total Accidents Total volume

Major Street Minor Street

34 CONSTITUTION ELIZABETH ST 7 0.20 0 0.00 0 7 18800

35 JFK TROUTMAN 4 0.11 1 0.03 1 6 14200

36 LOOMIS MULBERRY ST 3 0.08 3 0.08 7 13 23450

37 TAFT HILL RD ELIZABETH ST 10 0.28 23 0.64 5 38 34850

38 LEMAY STUART 8 0.22 12 0.33 2 22 33450

39 MELDRUM MULBERRY ST 8 0.22 5 0.14 1 14 24100

40 LEMAY SOUTHRIDGE 3 0.08 1 0.03 0 4 16450

41 WORTHINGTON DRAKE 3 0.08 5 0.14 0 8 26100

42 TIMBERLINE RD CARIBOU 5 0.14 9 0.25 2 16 32400

43 TAFT HILL RD VALLEY FORGE 2 0.06 3 0.08 0 5 22250

44 RIVERSIDE AV MOUNTAIN 3 0.08 6 0.17 1 10 21550

45 SHIELDS ST ROCKY MOUNTAIN 1 0.03 5 0.14 0 6 33650

46 YORKSHIRE DRAKE 0 0.00 1 0.03 1 2 14150

47 TIMBERLINE RD VERMONT 5 0.14 5 0.14 1 11 36000

48 LEMAY FOSSIL CREEK 1 0.03 1 0.03 1 3 14800

49 LEMAY PENNOCK 6 0.17 9 0.25 1 16 30900

50 REMINGTON MULBERRY ST 19 0.53 10 0.28 3 32 30850

51 LEMAY BOARDWALK 0 0.00 3 0.08 0 3 17250

52 WHITCOMB PROSPECT 5 0.14 7 0.20 1 13 27350

53 LEMAY ROBERTSON 0 0.00 2 0.06 0 2 30900

54 MANHATTAN HORSETOOTH RD 5 0.14 18 0.50 2 25 32650

55 TRADITION HORSETOOTH RD 2 0.06 2 0.06 0 4 25600

56 STARFLOWER HARMONY RD 2 0.06 5 0.14 0 7 22300

57 TIMBERLINE RD BATTLE CREEK 0 0.00 9 0.25 0 9 20250

58 ZIEGLER COUNCIL TREE 3 0.08 8 0.22 1 12 23000

59 WHEDBEE MULBERRY ST 2 0.06 4 0.11 0 6 27350

60 LEMAY PROSPECT RD 21 0.59 31 0.86 11 63 51600

61 LEMAY RIVERSIDE 16 0.45 22 0.61 8 46 33700

62 CENTRE PROSPECT 7 0.20 15 0.42 1 23 32608

63 STOVER DRAKE 5 0.14 8 0.22 3 16 26550

64 TAFT HILL RD HARMONY RD 3 0.08 16 0.45 2 21 26000

65 REMINGTON PROSPECT 8 0.22 5 0.14 1 14 28100

66 COLLEGE AV OLIVE 3 0.08 10 0.28 1 14 27200

67 COLLEGE AV SKYWAY 4 0.11 4 0.11 4 12 33400

206

Inters # Intersection Front to side Rate Rear end Rate Other Total Accidents Total volume

Major Street Minor Street

68 COLLEGE AV CHERRY 7 0.20 20 0.56 3 30 34098

69 COLLEGE AV LAPORTE 8 0.22 10 0.28 0 18 27450

70 LEMAY ELIZABETH ST 4 0.11 5 0.14 2 11 31950

71 RIVERSIDE AV MULBERRY ST 6 0.17 42 1.17 3 51 37950

72 COLLEGE AV MAGNOLIA 2 0.06 12 0.33 1 15 28900

73 COLLEGE AV WILLOX 6 0.17 16 0.45 4 26 30250

74 LINDEN JEFFERSON 1 0.03 0 0.00 0 1 20850

75 LEMAY DOCTORS LN 3 0.08 7 0.20 0 10 30500

76 RESEARCH/MEADOW LARK DRAKE 3 0.08 13 0.36 0 16 30550

77 STANFORD HORSETOOTH RD 4 0.11 6 0.17 2 12 32200

78 TIMBERLINE RD TIMBERWOOD 9 0.25 10 0.28 2 21 32100

79 COLLEGE AV MAPLE/JEFFERSON 4 0.11 7 0.20 4 15 30346

80 SHIELDS ST RAINTREE 4 0.11 16 0.45 2 22 40850

81 MASON ST HORSETOOTH RD 6 0.17 24 0.67 3 33 35450

82 JFK HORSETOOTH RD 7 0.20 12 0.33 4 23 37700

83 RIVERSIDE AV PROSPECT RD 3 0.08 23 0.64 3 29 33450

84 TIMBERLINE RD CUSTER 0 0.00 6 0.17 1 7 38600

85 COLLEGE AV MONROE 24 0.67 84 2.34 3 111 49850

86 COLLEGE AV DRAKE RD 14 0.39 57 1.59 21 92 75900

87 TIMBERLINE RD HARMONY RD 7 0.20 49 1.37 22 78 65850

88 COLLEGE AV HORSETOOTH RD 27 0.75 107 2.98 19 153 71550

89 COLLEGE AV FOOTHILLS 8 0.22 58 1.62 2 68 48550

90 CORBETT HARMONY RD 6 0.17 42 1.17 2 50 34400

91 COLLEGE AV LAUREL 7 0.20 44 1.23 6 57 48542

92 COLLEGE AV HARVARD 7 0.20 16 0.45 2 25 45800

93 COLLEGE AV BOCKMAN 4 0.11 17 0.47 2 23 48150

94 SNOW MESA HARMONY RD 7 0.20 19 0.53 5 31 36800

95 ZIEGLER HARMONY RD 7 0.20 37 1.03 7 51 43250

96 COLLEGE AV KENSINGTON 13 0.36 16 0.45 1 30 42850

97 COLLEGE AV BOARDWALK 24 0.67 25 0.70 0 49 52664

98 COLLEGE AV RUTGERS 13 0.36 19 0.53 1 33 47150

99 COLLEGE AV SWALLOW 23 0.64 29 0.81 1 53 53809

100 COLLEGE AV COLUMBIA 3 0.08 16 0.45 1 20 48200

101 LADY MOON HARMONY RD 0 0.00 8 0.22 0 8 36150

207

Inters # Intersection Front to side Rate Rear end Rate Other Total Accidents Total volume

Major Street Minor Street

102 COLLEGE AV TROUTMAN 23 0.64 19 0.53 4 46 50400

103 COLLEGE AV PITKIN 13 0.36 5 0.14 3 21 42950

104 COLLEGE AV SPRING PARK 4 0.11 6 0.17 0 10 46400

105 COLLEGE AV PROSPECT RD 17 0.47 75 2.09 23 115 72882

106 COLLEGE AV STUART 3 0.08 13 0.36 0 16 47000

Total 3805

Ave 35.90

Note: Intersections highlighted in yellow are referred to current RLC locations

208

Table 60 Fort Collins intersections ranked based on front to side crashes.

Rank Intersection Front to Side Rate Weighted

1 COLLEGE AV TRILBY RD 0.81 0.050

2 SHIELDS ST PROSPECT RD 0.81 0.050

3 TIMBERLINE RD HORSETOOTH RD 0.75 0.047

4 COLLEGE AV HORSETOOTH RD 0.75 0.047

5 COLLEGE AV MONROE 0.67 0.041

6 COLLEGE AV BOARDWALK 0.67 0.041

7 TIMBERLINE RD DRAKE RD 0.64 0.040

8 COLLEGE AV SWALLOW 0.64 0.040

9 COLLEGE AV TROUTMAN 0.64 0.040

10 LEMAY DRAKE RD 0.61 0.038

11 COLLEGE AV MULBERRY ST 0.61 0.038

12 BOARDWALK DR HARMONY RD 0.59 0.036

13 SHIELDS ST HORSETOOTH RD 0.59 0.036

14 LEMAY PROSPECT RD 0.59 0.036

15 REMINGTON MULBERRY ST 0.53 0.033

16 SHIELDS ST MULBERRY ST 0.50 0.031

17 TAFT HILL RD DRAKE RD 0.50 0.031

18 COLLEGE AV PROSPECT RD 0.47 0.029

19 LEMAY RIVERSIDE 0.45 0.028

20 SHIELDS ST DRAKE RD 0.42 0.026

21 COLLEGE AV DRAKE RD 0.39 0.024

22 SHIELDS ST ELIZABETH ST 0.36 0.022

23 COLLEGE AV HARMONY RD 0.36 0.022

24 LEMAY MULBERRY ST 0.36 0.022

25 COLLEGE AV KENSINGTON 0.36 0.022

26 COLLEGE AV RUTGERS 0.36 0.022

27 COLLEGE AV PITKIN 0.36 0.022

28 SHIELDS ST HARMONY RD 0.31 0.019

29 TAFT HILL RD HORSETOOTH RD 0.31 0.019

30 TAFT HILL RD MULBERRY ST 0.31 0.019

31 SHIELDS ST PLUM 0.28 0.017

32 TAFT HILL RD PROSPECT RD 0.28 0.017

33 TAFT HILL RD ELIZABETH ST 0.28 0.017

34 LEMAY HARMONY RD 0.25 0.016

35 TIMBERLINE RD PROSPECT RD 0.25 0.016

36 TIMBERLINE RD TIMBERWOOD 0.25 0.016

37 SHIELDS ST SWALLOW 0.22 0.014

38 JFK BOARDWALK 0.22 0.014

39 LEMAY OAKRIDGE 0.22 0.014

40 LEMAY STUART 0.22 0.014

41 MELDRUM MULBERRY ST 0.22 0.014

42 REMINGTON PROSPECT 0.22 0.014

43 COLLEGE AV LAPORTE 0.22 0.014

44 COLLEGE AV FOOTHILLS 0.22 0.014

45 MASON ST HARMONY RD 0.20 0.012

46 MCMURRY HARMONY RD 0.20 0.012

47 CONSTITUTION ELIZABETH ST 0.20 0.012

48 CENTRE PROSPECT 0.20 0.012

209

Rank Intersection Front to Side Rate Weighted

49 COLLEGE AV CHERRY 0.20 0.012

50 JFK HORSETOOTH RD 0.20 0.012

51 TIMBERLINE RD HARMONY RD 0.20 0.012

52 COLLEGE AV LAUREL 0.20 0.012

53 COLLEGE AV HARVARD 0.20 0.012

54 SNOW MESA HARMONY RD 0.20 0.012

55 ZIEGLER HARMONY RD 0.20 0.012

56 COLLEGE AV MOUNTAIN 0.17 0.010

57 JFK HARMONY RD 0.17 0.010

58 LEMAY PENNOCK 0.17 0.010

59 RIVERSIDE AV MULBERRY ST 0.17 0.010

60 COLLEGE AV WILLOX 0.17 0.010

61 MASON ST HORSETOOTH RD 0.17 0.010

62 CORBETT HARMONY RD 0.17 0.010

63 TIMBERLINE RD CARIBOU 0.14 0.009

64 TIMBERLINE RD VERMONT 0.14 0.009

65 WHITCOMB PROSPECT 0.14 0.009

66 MANHATTAN HORSETOOTH RD 0.14 0.009

67 STOVER DRAKE 0.14 0.009

68 CITY PARK ELIZABETH ST 0.11 0.007

69 JFK TROUTMAN 0.11 0.007

70 COLLEGE AV SKYWAY 0.11 0.007

71 LEMAY ELIZABETH ST 0.11 0.007

72 STANFORD HORSETOOTH RD 0.11 0.007

73 COLLEGE AV MAPLE/JEFFERSON 0.11 0.007

74 SHIELDS ST RAINTREE 0.11 0.007

75 COLLEGE AV BOCKMAN 0.11 0.007

76 COLLEGE AV SPRING PARK 0.11 0.007

77 ZIEGLER ROCK CREEK 0.08 0.005

78 LOOMIS MULBERRY ST 0.08 0.005

79 LEMAY SOUTHRIDGE 0.08 0.005

80 WORTHINGTON DRAKE 0.08 0.005

81 RIVERSIDE AV MOUNTAIN 0.08 0.005

82 ZIEGLER COUNCIL TREE 0.08 0.005

83 TAFT HILL RD HARMONY RD 0.08 0.005

84 COLLEGE AV OLIVE 0.08 0.005

85 LEMAY DOCTORS LN 0.08 0.005

86 RESEARCH/MEADOW LARK DRAKE 0.08 0.005

87 RIVERSIDE AV PROSPECT RD 0.08 0.005

88 COLLEGE AV COLUMBIA 0.08 0.005

89 COLLEGE AV STUART 0.08 0.005

90 SHIELDS ST ROLLAND MOORE 0.06 0.003

91 TAFT HILL RD VALLEY FORGE 0.06 0.003

92 TRADITION HORSETOOTH RD 0.06 0.003

93 STARFLOWER HARMONY RD 0.06 0.003

94 WHEDBEE MULBERRY ST 0.06 0.003

95 COLLEGE AV MAGNOLIA 0.06 0.003

96 TIMBERLINE RD NANCY GRAY 0.03 0.002

97 COLLEGE AV FOSSIL CREEK 0.03 0.002

98 SHIELDS ST ROCKY MOUNTAIN 0.03 0.002

210

Rank Intersection Front to Side Rate Weighted

99 LEMAY FOSSIL CREEK 0.03 0.002

100 LINDEN JEFFERSON 0.03 0.002

101 YORKSHIRE DRAKE 0.00 0.000

102 LEMAY BOARDWALK 0.00 0.000

103 LEMAY ROBERTSON 0.00 0.000

104 TIMBERLINE RD BATTLE CREEK 0.00 0.000

105 TIMBERLINE RD CUSTER 0.00 0.000

106 LADY MOON HARMONY RD 0.00 0.000

Note: Intersections highlighted in yellow are referred to current RLC locations

211

Table 61 Analysis of Denver intersections based on crash severity level and normalized crash severity level.

Inters # Intersection Name Major St Vol Minor St Vol AADT (10-12) 10-12 F 10-12 I 10-12 PDO TC N-CSL CSL

1 N Tower Rd Pena Blvd 14844 9630 24474 0 6 28 16 5.5 88

2 N Tower Rd E 56th Ave 8866 7200 16066 0 6 62 37 3.3 122

3 E 56th Ave Pena Blvd 6301 4532 10833 0 3 21 15 3.4 51

4 E 56th Ave N Havana St 3095 2816 5911 0 0 23 15 1.53 23

5 E 56th Ave N Peoria St 1640 407 2047 0 0 5 4 1.25 5

6 E 56th Ave N Quebec St 10152 9170 19322 0 0 17 12 1.42 17

7 N Quebec St E 53rd Pl 10321 9234 19555 0 1 33 22 1.95 43

8 E 53rd Ave N Chambers Rd 1136 1071 2207 0 0 6 5 1.2 6

9 N Vasquez Blvd E 52nd Ave 9518 7532 17050 0 5 18 11 6.18 68

10 W 52nd Ave N Pecos St 1324 1324 2648 0 1 4 2 7 14

11 N Federal Blvd W 52nd Ave 17307 16896 34203 0 4 32 19 3.79 72

12 N Sheridan Blvd W 52nd Ave 17311 15738 33049 0 3 21 13 3.92 51

13 N Havana St E 51st Ave 3829 3729 7558 0 5 18 11 6.18 68

14 E 51st Ave N Peoria St 3747 3670 7417 0 5 37 21 4.14 87

15 N Washington St E 51st Ave 7108 6997 14105 0 0 4 3 1.33 4

16 N Washington St E 50th Ave 7223 6981 14204 0 0 8 6 1.33 8

17 W 50th Ave N Federal Blvd 19324 17453 36777 0 11 67 38 4.66 177

18 W 50th Ave N Lowell Blvd 7384 7143 14527 0 2 18 12 3.17 38

19 N Peoria St E Andrews Dr 16313 11235 27548 0 6 43 28 3.68 103

20 N Federal Blvd Interstate 70 14233 12368 26601 0 3 21 12 4.25 51

21 Green Valley Ranch Blvd N Himalaya Rd 27393 0 9 23 16 7.06 113

22 N Vasquez Blvd E 48th Ave 9518 7563 17081 0 3 26 15 3.73 56

23 N Colorado Blvd E 48th Ave 13784 12970 26754 0 3 35 17 3.82 65

24 W 48th Ave N Zuni St 2480 2240 4720 0 2 6 4 6.5 26

25 W 48th Ave N Pecos St 10709 9720 20429 0 4 27 16 4.19 67

26 N Sheridan Blvd Interstate 70 12930 0 0 4 2 2 4

27 N Sheridan Blvd W 48th Ave 17620 15738 33358 0 2 42 22 2.82 62

28 N Peoria St E 47th Ave 23432 16540 39972 0 16 166 88 3.7 326

29 N Havana St E 47th Ave 6484 6230 12714 0 6 63 32 3.84 123

212

Inters # Intersection Name Major St Vol Minor St Vol AADT (10-12) 10-12 F 10-12 I 10-12 PDO TC N-CSL CSL

30 N Pecos St Interstate 70 12233 0 1 13 7 3.29 23

31 E 47th Ave N Dallas St 9033 0 0 7 4 1.75 7

32 N Quebec St N Sand Creek Rd 35723 0 8 108 58 3.24 188

33 N Vasquez Blvd N Steele St 15263 0 2 10 6 5 30

34 N Washington St E 46th Ave 7108 6980 14088 0 3 41 22 3.23 71

35 N Colorado Blvd Interstate 70 14753 0 3 15 9 5 45

36 N Dahlia St E Stapleton North Dr 13433 0 6 52 30 3.73 112

37 E 46th Ave N Josephine St 6899 6584 13483 1 3 46 26 6.77 176

38 E 46th Ave N Steele St 7493 6322 13815 1 6 62 36 6.17 222

39 E 46th Ave N Clayton St 1733 1298 3031 0 7 18 9 9.78 88

40 E 46th Ave N York St 5443 5287 10730 0 4 42 23 3.57 82

41 N Federal Blvd W 46th Ave 18223 17262 35485 0 4 39 22 3.59 79

42 W 46th Ave N Pecos St 11200 10988 22188 0 4 66 35 3.03 106

43 W 46th Ave N Zuni St 2344 2096 4440 0 3 11 7 5.86 41

44 N Washington St Interstate 70 12130 8772 20902 0 2 48 8 8.5 68

45 W 46th Ave N Lowell Blvd 3889 3221 7110 0 4 28 16 4.25 68

46 N Dahlia St E Stapleton South Dr 8273 0 2 42 22 2.82 62

47 N Tennyson St W 46th Ave 5669 5332 11001 0 1 7 4 4.25 17

48 N Sheridan Blvd W 46th Ave 17339 15738 33077 0 6 8 7 9.71 68

49 N Quebec St Interstate 70 17226 15890 33116 0 2 78 40 2.45 98

50 N Havana St E 45th Ave 6800 5748 12548 0 1 11 6 3.5 21

51 N Colorado Blvd Interstate 70 13883 11827 25710 0 0 20 10 2 20

52 N Washington St Interstate 70 22833 0 1 33 17 2.53 43

53 N Steele St E 45th Ave 7803 6677 14480 0 0 26 13 2 26

54 E Stapleton North Dr N Monaco St 5732 0 1 23 12 2.75 33

55 N Holly St E Stapleton North Dr 27373 0 3 51 27 3 81

56 N Peoria St E 45th Ave 13940 12930 26870 0 3 49 26 3.04 79

57 N Washington St E 45th Ave 8200 7108 15308 0 3 52 27 3.04 82

58 N Monaco St E Stapleton South Dr 28373 0 13 87 50 4.34 217

59 E Stapleton South Dr N Holly St 17283 0 1 25 13 2.69 35

60 N Quebec St Interstate 70 22834 0 0 72 36 2 72

213

Inters # Intersection Name Major St Vol Minor St Vol AADT (10-12) 10-12 F 10-12 I 10-12 PDO TC N-CSL CSL

61 N Havana St Interstate 70 18223 17339 35562 0 0 28 14 2 28

62 N Chambers Rd E 46th Ave 7889 6553 14442 0 11 37 24 6.13 147

63 W 44th Ave N Lowell Blvd 3221 2748 5969 2 1 15 9 25 225

64 W 44th Ave N Irving St 2882 2616 5498 0 0 16 8 2 16

65 N Federal Blvd W 44th Ave 18229 17307 35536 1 4 55 30 6.5 195

66 N Tennyson St W 44th Ave 5449 4263 9712 0 3 21 12 4.25 51

67 N Washington St Ringsby Ct 2863 2283 5146 0 2 6 4 6.5 26

68 N Sheridan Blvd W 44th Ave 19823 17311 37134 0 4 38 21 3.71 78

69 N Tower Rd E 43rd Ave 11282 10462 21744 0 1 19 10 2.9 29

70 N Peoria St Interstate 70 35022 27182 62204 0 4 40 22 3.64 80

71 38th St Arkins Ct 6483 0 2 16 9 4 36

72 N Pecos St W 42nd Ave 10922 9459 20381 0 1 3 2 6.5 13

73 E 40th Ave N Chambers Rd 15463 11236 26699 0 4 62 33 3.09 102

74 N Peoria St Interstate 70 42733 0 1 23 12 2.75 33

75 N Havana St E 40th Ave 7939 6380 14319 0 2 32 17 3.06 52

76 E Smith Rd N Monaco St 2989 2084 5073 0 4 42 23 3.57 82

77 N Colorado Blvd E 40th Ave 26036 25903 51939 0 11 91 51 3.94 201

78 N Steele St E 40th Ave 8729 7803 16532 0 2 20 11 3.64 40

79 E 40th Ave N York St 8994 8022 17016 0 2 50 26 2.69 70

80 N Brighton Blvd 38th St 7849 7413 15262 0 6 58 32 3.69 118

81 N Federal Blvd W 41st Ave 17290 16896 34186 0 1 15 8 3.13 25

82 N Sheridan Blvd W 41st Ave 18734 16823 35557 0 1 5 3 5 15

83 N Quebec St E Smith Rd 6749 5119 11868 0 8 86 47 3.53 166

84 N Peoria St E 39th Ave 24188 23610 47798 0 4 92 48 2.75 132

85 Walnut St 38th St 6128 5665 11793 0 1 23 12 2.75 33

86 W 38th Ave N Lowell Blvd 5674 4615 10289 0 5 53 29 3.55 103

87 N Downing St Walnut St 3880 3150 7030 0 1 7 4 4.25 17

88 W 38th Ave N Irving St 5384 4439 9823 1 6 29 18 10.5 189

89 N Lipan St W 38th Ave 11244 0 2 18 10 3.8 38

90 W 38th Ave N Perry St 11902 10632 22534 0 1 7 4 4.25 17

91 W 38th Ave N Navajo St 12733 0 1 13 7 3.29 23

214

Inters # Intersection Name Major St Vol Minor St Vol AADT (10-12) 10-12 F 10-12 I 10-12 PDO TC N-CSL CSL

92 W 38th Ave N Pecos St 11922 10671 22593 0 10 50 30 5 150

93 W 38th Ave N Tejon St 4879 4166 9045 0 2 24 13 3.38 44

94 W 38th Ave N Zuni St 3893 3250 7143 0 3 33 18 3.5 63

95 W 38th Ave N Fox St 11499 7283 18782 0 7 69 38 3.66 139

96 N Federal Blvd W 38th Ave 22834 19820 42654 0 7 129 68 2.93 199

97 W 38th Ave N Tennyson St 7383 6223 13606 0 2 26 14 3.29 46

98 W 38th Ave N Clay St 4183 3784 7967 0 4 12 8 6.5 52

99 N Sheridan Blvd W 38th Ave 18393 17275 35668 0 5 75 40 3.13 125

100 N Peoria St E 37th Ave 19203 18066 37269 0 4 74 39 2.92 114

101 N Quebec St E 36th Ave 21030 20007 41037 0 3 77 40 2.68 107

102 Park Ave W Interstate 25 9323 8292 17615 0 12 52 32 5.38 172

103 N Quebec St E 35th Ave 21034 18779 39813 0 3 35 19 3.42 65

104 N Colorado Blvd E 35th Ave 24385 22843 47228 0 3 43 23 3.17 73

105 Park Ave W N Globeville Rd 19833 18918 38751 0 5 71 38 3.18 121

106 N Federal Blvd W 35th Ave 18990 17307 36297 0 3 17 10 4.7 47

107 N Federal Blvd W 33rd Ave 20120 18293 38413 0 2 24 13 3.38 44

108 E Martin Luther King Blvd N Quebec St 9820 8240 18060 0 10 132 71 3.27 232

109 E Martin Luther King Blvd N Monaco St 9830 8414 18244 0 9 95 52 3.56 185

110 N Colorado Blvd E Martin Luther King Blvd 13954 11084 25038 0 6 138 72 2.75 198

111 W 32nd Ave N Federal Blvd 17930 17307 35237 0 7 63 35 3.8 133

112 W 32nd Ave N Sheridan Blvd 18092 17275 35367 0 3 23 13 4.08 53

113 E 31st Ave N York St 12893 12034 24927 0 17 73 45 5.4 243

114 N Federal Blvd N Speer Blvd 13949 12147 26096 0 5 59 32 3.41 109

115 N Broadway Blake St 7390 6800 14190 0 2 22 12 3.5 42

116 N Colorado Blvd E 29th Ave 31083 29833 60916 0 6 40 23 4.35 100

117 N Lowell Blvd W 29th Ave 5729 4987 10716 0 3 27 15 3.8 57

118 N Federal Blvd W 29th Ave 17839 16977 34816 0 2 58 30 2.6 78

119 N Speer Blvd W 29th Ave 31944 30253 62197 0 10 48 29 5.1 148

120 W 29th Ave N Irving St 3872 3439 7311 0 2 8 5 5.6 28

121 N Sheridan Blvd W 29th Ave 18729 17275 36004 0 4 26 15 4.4 66

122 15th St Central St 7192 6019 13211 0 2 14 8 4.25 34

215

Inters # Intersection Name Major St Vol Minor St Vol AADT (10-12) 10-12 F 10-12 I 10-12 PDO TC N-CSL CSL

123 E 28th Ave N York St 1233 1028 2261 0 5 0 2 25 50

124 Park Ave W Blake St 6840 5589 12429 0 3 45 24 3.13 75

125 N Broadway Larimer St 5932 4902 10834 0 2 8 5 5.6 28

126 15th St Platte St 7293 6692 13985 0 2 34 18 3 54

127 Blake St 22nd St 6539 5640 12179 0 1 65 33 2.27 75

128 N Quebec St E 26th Ave 17432 15940 33372 0 6 6 6 11 66

129 N Monaco St E 26th Ave 8733 6893 15626 0 1 9 5 3.8 19

130 N Colorado Blvd E 26th Ave 29384 27950 57334 0 2 42 22 2.82 62

131 22nd St Larimer St 4140 4140 8280 0 3 31 17 3.59 61

132 N Federal Blvd W 26th Ave 17930 16221 34151 0 9 57 33 4.45 147

133 W 26th Ave N Irving St 4234 3439 7673 1 5 10 8 20 160

134 E 26th Ave N Downing St 14778 14021 28799 0 6 16 11 6.91 76

135 N York St E 26th Ave 13044 12499 25543 0 13 41 27 6.33 171

136 20th St Blake St 8030 7694 15724 0 4 52 28 3.29 92

137 22nd St Lawrence St 11293 9331 20624 0 9 59 34 4.38 149

138 20th St Market St 20234 19940 40174 0 5 49 27 3.67 99

139 22nd St Arapahoe St 9283 8941 18224 0 6 52 29 3.86 112

140 19th St Blake St 6483 4699 11182 0 3 13 8 5.38 43

141 22nd St N Broadway 10283 8944 19227 0 3 95 49 2.55 125

142 18th St Blake St 23945 21605 45550 0 7 47 27 4.33 117

143 N Speer Blvd Elitch Cir 31034 28767 59801 0 4 18 11 5.27 58

144 20th St Lawrence St 7322 6868 14190 0 6 90 48 3.13 150

145 Market St 18th St 11922 11849 23771 0 7 37 22 4.86 107

146 N Broadway Champa St 7181 0 1 51 26 2.35 61

147 N Quebec St E 23rd Ave 1892 1258 3150 0 5 45 25 3.8 95

148 N Colorado Blvd E 23rd Ave 3322 2410 5732 0 7 87 47 3.34 157

149 19th St Curtis St 3982 3807 7789 0 3 23 13 4.08 53

150 Park Ave W Tremont Pl 1234 916 2150 0 5 7 6 9.5 57

151 Arapahoe St 18th St 9282 7618 16900 0 4 6 5 9.2 46

152 N Speer Blvd Blake St 13995 13995 27990 0 3 55 29 2.93 85

153 20th St Welton St 16543 14796 31339 0 4 46 25 3.44 86

216

Inters # Intersection Name Major St Vol Minor St Vol AADT (10-12) 10-12 F 10-12 I 10-12 PDO TC N-CSL CSL

154 E Montview Blvd N Quebec St 6383 5421 11804 0 7 81 44 3.43 151

155 N Speer Blvd Auraria Pkwy 27355 25266 52621 0 8 94 51 3.41 174

156 N Colorado Blvd E Montview Blvd 5339 5013 10352 0 13 71 42 4.79 201

157 N Broadway Welton St 14908 14908 29816 0 3 61 32 2.84 91

158 Park Ave E 19th Ave 9359 8339 17698 0 4 10 7 7.14 50

159 N Lincoln St E 19th Ave 10334 8293 18627 0 4 38 21 3.71 78

160 N Broadway E 19th Ave 24856 3234 28090 0 1 45 23 2.39 55

161 15th St Champa St 9674 7312 16986 0 3 65 34 2.79 95

162 17th St Welton St 14959 0 1 71 36 2.25 81

163 California St 16th St 4649 0 3 3 3 11 33

164 E 18th Ave N Franklin St 956 0 2 46 24 2.75 66

165 N Clarkson St E 18th Ave 16990 0 3 31 17 3.59 61

166 15th St Stout St 11730 0 3 43 23 3.17 73

167 N Yosemite St E 17th Ave 1487 0 4 12 8 6.5 52

168 N Monaco St E 17th Ave 14690 0 3 25 14 3.93 55

169 Tremont Pl 17th St 16816 0 5 33 19 4.37 83

170 N Colorado Blvd E 17th Ave 19823 18582 38405 0 11 163 87 3.14 273

171 N Federal Blvd W 17th Ave 18582 17928 36510 0 1 49 25 2.36 59

172 N Sheridan Blvd W 17th Ave 20112 18039 38151 0 11 43 27 5.67 153

173 Welton St 15th St 7600 0 4 48 26 3.38 88

174 N Broadway E 17th Ave 24856 0 5 89 47 2.96 139

175 E 17th Ave N Downing St 4477 0 3 21 12 4.25 51

176 Park Ave E 17th Ave 6393 4592 10985 0 5 31 18 4.5 81

177 N Lincoln St E 17th Ave 11812 0 1 59 30 2.3 69

178 15th St Tremont Pl 13556 0 3 41 22 3.23 71

179 Glenarm Pl 14th St 2771 0 4 14 9 6 54

180 E 16th Ave N York St 11856 0 3 33 18 3.5 63

181 E Colfax Ave N Quebec St 16432 15684 31368 0 14 108 61 4.07 248

182 E Colfax Ave N Monaco St 17229 14734 29468 0 8 136 72 3 216

183 N Colorado Blvd E Colfax Ave 26297 25455 50910 1 11 206 109 3.82 416

184 E Colfax Ave N Elizabeth St 15816 0 3 25 14 3.93 55

217

Inters # Intersection Name Major St Vol Minor St Vol AADT (10-12) 10-12 F 10-12 I 10-12 PDO TC N-CSL CSL

185 W Colfax Ave N Irving St 18071 17294 34588 0 8 38 23 5.13 118

186 W Colfax Ave N Kalamath St 10682 1 16 257 137 3.77 517

187 W Colfax Ave Welton St 17993 16410 32820 0 2 44 23 2.78 64

188 E Colfax Ave N York St 17341 15622 31244 0 4 72 38 2.95 112

189 N Sheridan Blvd W Colfax Ave 22395 21940 44335 1 8 117 63 4.71 297

190 E Colfax Ave N Washington St 16434 15750 32184 0 8 34 21 5.43 114

191 E Colfax Ave N Logan St 6288 0 3 79 41 2.66 109

192 W Colfax Ave 7th St 27494 24584 52078 0 11 127 69 3.43 237

193 W Colfax Ave N Mariposa St 26940 25553 52493 0 2 64 33 2.55 84

194 N Quebec St E 14th Ave 9596 9500 19096 0 2 60 31 2.58 80

195 N Monaco St E 14th Ave 14995 1 1 32 17 8.35 142

196 E 14th Ave N Josephine St 16634 0 13 45 29 6.03 175

197 E 14th Ave N York St 20624 0 6 74 40 3.35 134

198 N Colorado Blvd E 14th Ave 22945 17400 40345 1 7 158 83 3.95 328

199 N Corona St E 14th Ave 7816 0 2 4 3 8 24

200 E 14th Ave N Downing St 9643 0 5 49 27 3.67 99

201 E 14th Ave N Pearl St 14731 0 4 16 10 5.6 56

202 E 14th Ave N Washington St 9558 0 1 25 13 2.69 35

203 E 14th Ave N Logan St 12844 0 6 20 13 6.15 80

204 N Grant St E 14th Ave 17969 0 9 37 23 5.52 127

205 N Lincoln St E 14th Ave 30688 0 7 75 41 3.54 145

206 N Broadway E 14th Ave 20428 0 2 62 32 2.56 82

207 N Speer Blvd W 14th Ave 31248 30253 61501 0 16 116 66 4.18 276

208 N Sheridan Blvd W 14th Ave 7292 6019 13311 0 1 65 33 2.27 75

209 N Federal Blvd W 14th Ave 21331 19839 41170 0 5 91 48 2.94 141

210 E 13th Ave N Syracuse St 6732 6106 12838 0 4 22 13 4.77 62

211 E 13th Ave N Josephine St 16634 0 7 47 27 4.33 117

212 E 13th Ave N Downing St 8055 0 2 58 30 2.6 78

213 E 13th Ave N Washington St 9558 0 9 15 12 8.75 105

214 N Colorado Blvd E 13th Ave 12556 0 3 97 50 2.54 127

215 N Logan St E 13th Ave 10385 0 2 48 25 2.72 68

218

Inters # Intersection Name Major St Vol Minor St Vol AADT (10-12) 10-12 F 10-12 I 10-12 PDO TC N-CSL CSL

216 E 13th Ave N Grant St 17346 11033 28379 0 2 52 27 2.67 72

217 N Lincoln St E 13th Ave 25399 0 1 83 42 2.21 93

218 N Colorado Blvd E 12th Ave 22144 0 4 16 10 5.6 56

219 N Lincoln St E 12th Ave 29347 27178 56525 0 6 44 25 4.16 104

220 N Federal Blvd W 10th Ave 18273 17030 35303 0 9 75 42 3.93 165

221 W 10th Ave N Knox Ct 4265 0 9 13 11 9.36 103

222 E 9th Ave N Downing St 10058 0 2 10 6 5 30

223 N Speer Blvd N Bannock St 26382 17383 43765 0 8 60 34 4.12 140

224 N Quebec St E 8th Ave 2538 0 4 24 14 4.57 64

225 N Monaco St E 8th Ave 5292 4485 9777 0 4 74 39 2.92 114

226 N Colorado Blvd E 8th Ave 16393 12849 29242 0 6 126 66 2.82 186

227 E 8th Ave N Corona St 7953 0 5 15 10 6.5 65

228 E 8th Ave N Clarkson St 8290 6128 14418 0 7 17 12 7.25 87

229 W 8th Ave N Broadway 35259 0 6 126 66 2.82 186

230 W 7th Ave N Santa Fe Dr 16175 0 1 33 17 2.53 43

231 N Kalamath St W 7th Ave 36984 0 3 87 45 2.6 117

232 E 6th Ave N Monaco St 9334 8775 18109 0 4 32 18 4 72

233 E 6th Ave N Colorado Blvd 31832 0 8 192 100 2.72 272

234 E 6th Ave N Lincoln St 33572 1 7 252 130 3.25 422

235 W 6th Ave N Broadway 35259 0 5 135 70 2.64 185

236 E 6th Ave N Corona St 7953 0 5 35 20 4.25 85

237 N Colorado Blvd E 3rd Ave 32319 0 10 166 88 3.02 266

238 N Broadway W 3rd Ave 35750 0 7 57 32 3.97 127

239 E Speer Blvd N Corona St 28524 0 7 47 27 4.33 117

240 N Broadway W 1st Ave 35750 0 9 35 22 5.68 125

241 N University Blvd E 1st Ave 44343 1 12 173 99 4.22 393

242 E 1st Ave N Saint Paul St 27335 0 7 53 30 4.1 123

243 N Colorado Blvd E 1st Ave 32319 0 9 175 92 2.88 265

244 N Federal Blvd W 1st Ave 21393 20222 41615 0 11 15 13 9.62 125

245 N Sheridan Blvd W 1st Ave 26389 24188 50577 0 3 51 27 3 81

246 E 1st Ave N Steele St 23737 18223 41960 0 4 62 33 3.09 102

219

Inters # Intersection Name Major St Vol Minor St Vol AADT (10-12) 10-12 F 10-12 I 10-12 PDO TC N-CSL CSL

247 S Steele St E Bayaud Ave 4923 3306 8229 0 7 73 40 3.58 143

248 S Colorado Blvd E Alameda Ave 12488 9274 21762 0 7 173 90 2.7 243

249 E Alameda Ave E Fairmount Dr 20366 18293 38659 1 6 71 39 5.92 231

250 E Alameda Ave S Quebec St 20230 18292 38522 0 16 158 87 3.66 318

251 E Alameda Ave S Havana St 19923 19109 39032 0 8 14 11 8.55 94

252 E Alameda Ave Leetsdale Dr 820 704 1524 0 7 145 76 2.83 215

253 E Alameda Ave S Monaco St 21834 14357 36191 0 6 204 105 2.51 264

254 S University Blvd E Alameda Ave 23542 17293 40835 0 7 111 59 3.07 181

255 E Alameda Ave S Downing St 9665 8273 17938 0 4 36 20 3.8 76

256 E Alameda Ave S Lincoln St 28055 0 3 55 29 2.93 85

257 W Alameda Ave S Kalamath St 12043 10991 23034 0 13 139 76 3.54 269

258 S Broadway W Alameda Ave 34563 0 9 99 54 3.5 189

259 E Alameda Ave S Washington St 4031 4031 8062 1 3 54 29 6.34 184

260 W Alameda Ave S Platte River Dr 11223 0 7 41 24 4.63 111

261 W Alameda Ave S Sheridan Blvd 14353 0 9 65 37 4.19 155

262 W Alameda Ave S Yuma St 15930 1 7 38 23 9.04 208

263 W Alameda Ave S Perry St 18321 1 7 40 24 8.75 210

264 W Alameda Ave S Knox Ct 17243 1 3 80 42 5 210

265 S Federal Blvd W Alameda Ave 20834 18246 39080 1 13 188 101 4.14 418

266 Leetsdale Dr S Holly St 7329 5833 13162 0 4 110 57 2.63 150

267 S Colorado Blvd E Cherry Creek North Dr 10203 8203 18406 1 4 131 68 3.99 271

268 S Federal Blvd W Virginia Ave 12112 0 9 39 24 5.38 129

269 S Monaco St Leetsdale Dr 24875 18293 43168 0 17 291 154 2.99 461

270 S Colorado Blvd E Ohio Ave 13495 0 11 21 16 8.19 131

271 S Broadway E Ohio Ave 10923 0 3 79 41 2.66 109

272 S Broadway E Ohio Ave 29901 0 13 65 39 5 195

273 Leetsdale Dr S Oneida St 1666 1001 2667 0 3 89 46 2.59 119

274 S Federal Blvd W Kentucky Ave 18273 0 12 44 28 5.86 164

275 S Broadway W Kentucky Ave 11292 0 1 91 46 2.2 101

276 Morrison Rd W Kentucky Ave 10923 0 6 50 28 3.93 110

277 Leetsdale Dr S Quebec St 13849 12536 26385 1 9 282 146 3.23 472

220

Inters # Intersection Name Major St Vol Minor St Vol AADT (10-12) 10-12 F 10-12 I 10-12 PDO TC N-CSL CSL

278 E Mississippi Ave S Parker Rd 11923 9022 20945 0 5 87 46 2.98 137

279 E Mississippi Ave S Colorado Blvd 36166 0 6 100 53 3.02 160

280 S Santa Fe Dr W Mississippi Ave 19284 0 11 143 77 3.29 253

281 W Mississippi Ave S Platte River Dr 42949 0 24 188 106 4.04 428

282 S Broadway W Mississippi Ave 4509 2934 7443 1 6 57 32 6.78 217

283 S Federal Blvd W Mississippi Ave 14307 14293 28600 0 7 127 67 2.94 197

284 S Colorado Blvd E Louisiana Ave 22056 20399 42455 0 7 171 89 2.71 241

285 S Colorado Blvd E Arkansas Ave 17283 0 7 109 58 3.09 179

286 E Florida Ave S Holly St 6865 4282 11147 0 3 25 14 3.93 55

287 S Santa Fe Dr W Florida Ave 18273 0 12 80 46 4.35 200

288 S Federal Blvd W Florida Ave 38495 0 24 106 65 5.32 346

289 W Florida Ave S Irving St 16274 0 13 59 36 5.25 189

290 S Colorado Blvd E Iowa Ave 18272 0 11 107 59 3.68 217

291 S Santa Fe Dr W Iowa Ave 51292 0 8 64 36 4 144

292 S Colorado Blvd E Mexico Ave 33042 32873 65915 0 6 132 69 2.78 192

293 S Federal Blvd W Jewell Ave 15019 13744 28763 0 8 116 62 3.16 196

294 S Sheridan Blvd W Jewell Ave 8947 5993 14940 0 5 103 54 2.83 153

295 W Evans Ave S Sheridan Blvd 5539 4859 10398 0 15 95 55 4.45 245

296 S Colorado Blvd E Evans Ave 15282 12152 27434 0 11 161 86 3.15 271

297 E Evans Ave S Downing St 17628 17023 34651 0 3 61 32 2.84 91

298 E Evans Ave S High St 4950 0 5 25 15 5 75

299 S University Blvd E Evans Ave

25836 0 8 190 99 2.72 270

300 S Broadway E Evans Ave 15333 14263 29596 0 5 131 68 2.66 181

301 E Evans Ave S Quebec St 13237 0 10 62 36 4.5 162

302 S Colorado Blvd E Yale Ave 12295 10923 23218 0 11 65 38 4.61 175

303 E Hampden Ave S Dayton St 31002 24998 56000 0 11 67 39 4.54 177

304 E Hampden Ave S Yosemite St 21639 16283 37922 1 6 99 53 4.89 259

305 E Hampden Ave S Tamarac Dr 7870 5283 13153 0 17 129 73 4.1 299

306 E Hampden Ave S Monaco St 5833 4829 10662 0 11 91 51 3.94 201

307 E Hampden Ave S Locust St 32415 0 14 106 60 4.1 246

221

Inters # Intersection Name Major St Vol Minor St Vol AADT (10-12) 10-12 F 10-12 I 10-12 PDO TC N-CSL CSL

308 W 8th Ave N Speer Blvd 31832 0 17 112 90 3.13 282

309 N Kalamath St W 6th Ave 32984 0 1 69 35 2.26 79

Total 6971939 10045

Note: Intersections highlighted in yellow are referred to current RLC locations

222

Table 62 Denver intersections ranked based on normalized crash severity level.

Rank Intersection Name N-CSL Weighted

1 W 44th Ave N Lowell Blvd 25 0.150

2 E 28th Ave N York St 25 0.150

3 W 26th Ave N Irving St 20 0.120

4 N Quebec St E 26th Ave 11 0.066

5 California St 16th St 11 0.066

6 W 38th Ave N Irving St 10.5 0.063

7 E 46th Ave N Clayton St 9.78 0.059

8 N Sheridan Blvd W 46th Ave 9.71 0.058

9 N Federal Blvd W 1st Ave 9.62 0.058

10 Park Ave W Tremont Pl 9.5 0.057

11 W 10th Ave N Knox Ct 9.36 0.056

12 Arapahoe St 18th St 9.2 0.055

13 W Alameda Ave S Yuma St 9.04 0.054

14 E 13th Ave N Washington St 8.75 0.053

15 W Alameda Ave S Perry St 8.75 0.053

16 E Alameda Ave S Havana St 8.55 0.051

17 N Washington St Interstate 70 8.5 0.051

18 N Monaco St E 14th Ave 8.35 0.050

19 S Colorado Blvd E Ohio Ave 8.19 0.049

20 N Corona St E 14th Ave 8 0.048

21 E 8th Ave N Clarkson St 7.25 0.044

22 Park Ave E 19th Ave 7.14 0.043

23 Green Valley Ranch Blvd N Himalaya Rd 7.06 0.042

24 W 52nd Ave N Pecos St 7 0.042

25 E 26th Ave N Downing St 6.91 0.041

26 S Broadway W Mississippi Ave 6.78 0.041

27 E 46th Ave N Josephine St 6.77 0.041

28 W 48th Ave N Zuni St 6.5 0.039

29 N Federal Blvd W 44th Ave 6.5 0.039

30 N Washington St Ringsby Ct 6.5 0.039

31 N Pecos St W 42nd Ave 6.5 0.039

32 W 38th Ave N Clay St 6.5 0.039

33 N Yosemite St E 17th Ave 6.5 0.039

34 E 8th Ave N Corona St 6.5 0.039

35 E Alameda Ave S Washington St 6.34 0.038

36 N York St E 26th Ave 6.33 0.038

37 N Vasquez Blvd E 52nd Ave 6.18 0.037

38 N Havana St E 51st Ave 6.18 0.037

39 E 46th Ave N Steele St 6.17 0.037

40 E 14th Ave N Logan St 6.15 0.037

41 N Chambers Rd E 46th Ave 6.13 0.037

42 E 14th Ave N Josephine St 6.03 0.036

223

Rank Intersection Name N-CSL Weighted

43 Glenarm Pl 14th St 6 0.036

44 E Alameda Ave E Fairmount Dr 5.92 0.036

45 W 46th Ave N Zuni St 5.86 0.035

46 S Federal Blvd W Kentucky Ave 5.86 0.035

47 N Broadway W 1st Ave 5.68 0.034

48 N Sheridan Blvd W 17th Ave 5.67 0.034

49 W 29th Ave N Irving St 5.6 0.034

50 N Broadway Larimer St 5.6 0.034

51 E 14th Ave N Pearl St 5.6 0.034

52 N Colorado Blvd E 12th Ave 5.6 0.034

53 N Grant St E 14th Ave 5.52 0.033

54 N Tower Rd Pena Blvd 5.5 0.033

55 E Colfax Ave N Washington St 5.43 0.033

56 E 31st Ave N York St 5.4 0.032

57 Park Ave W Interstate 25 5.38 0.032

58 19th St Blake St 5.38 0.032

59 S Federal Blvd W Virginia Ave 5.38 0.032

60 S Federal Blvd W Florida Ave 5.32 0.032

61 N Speer Blvd Elitch Cir 5.27 0.032

62 W Florida Ave S Irving St 5.25 0.032

63 W Colfax Ave N Irving St 5.13 0.031

64 N Speer Blvd W 29th Ave 5.1 0.031

65 N Vasquez Blvd N Steele St 5 0.030

66 N Colorado Blvd Interstate 70 5 0.030

67 N Sheridan Blvd W 41st Ave 5 0.030

68 W 38th Ave N Pecos St 5 0.030

69 E 9th Ave N Downing St 5 0.030

70 W Alameda Ave S Knox Ct 5 0.030

71 S Broadway E Ohio Ave 5 0.030

72 E Evans Ave S High St 5 0.030

73 E Hampden Ave S Yosemite St 4.89 0.029

74 Market St 18th St 4.86 0.029

75 N Colorado Blvd E Montview Blvd 4.79 0.029

76 E 13th Ave N Syracuse St 4.77 0.029

77 N Sheridan Blvd W Colfax Ave 4.71 0.028

78 N Federal Blvd W 35th Ave 4.7 0.028

79 W 50th Ave N Federal Blvd 4.66 0.028

80 W Alameda Ave S Platte River Dr 4.63 0.028

81 S Colorado Blvd E Yale Ave 4.61 0.028

82 N Quebec St E 8th Ave 4.57 0.027

83 E Hampden Ave S Dayton St 4.54 0.027

84 Park Ave E 17th Ave 4.5 0.027

85 E Evans Ave S Quebec St 4.5 0.027

224

Rank Intersection Name N-CSL Weighted

86 N Federal Blvd W 26th Ave 4.45 0.027

87 W Evans Ave S Sheridan Blvd 4.45 0.027

88 N Sheridan Blvd W 29th Ave 4.4 0.026

89 22nd St Lawrence St 4.38 0.026

90 Tremont Pl 17th St 4.37 0.026

91 N Colorado Blvd E 29th Ave 4.35 0.026

92 S Santa Fe Dr W Florida Ave 4.35 0.026

93 N Monaco St E Stapleton South Dr 4.34 0.026

94 18th St Blake St 4.33 0.026

95 E 13th Ave N Josephine St 4.33 0.026

96 E Speer Blvd N Corona St 4.33 0.026

97 N Federal Blvd Interstate 70 4.25 0.026

98 W 46th Ave N Lowell Blvd 4.25 0.026

99 N Tennyson St W 46th Ave 4.25 0.026

100 N Tennyson St W 44th Ave 4.25 0.026

101 N Downing St Walnut St 4.25 0.026

102 W 38th Ave N Perry St 4.25 0.026

103 15th St Central St 4.25 0.026

104 E 17th Ave N Downing St 4.25 0.026

105 E 6th Ave N Corona St 4.25 0.026

106 S University Blvd E 1st Ave 4.23 0.025

107 W 48th Ave N Pecos St 4.19 0.025

108 W Alameda Ave S Sheridan Blvd 4.19 0.025

109 N Speer Blvd W 14th Ave 4.18 0.025

110 N Lincoln St E 12th Ave 4.16 0.025

111 E 51st Ave N Peoria St 4.14 0.025

112 S Federal Blvd W Alameda Ave 4.14 0.025

113 N Speer Blvd N Bannock St 4.12 0.025

114 E 1st Ave N Saint Paul St 4.1 0.025

115 E Hampden Ave S Tamarac Dr 4.1 0.025

116 E Hampden Ave S Locust St 4.1 0.025

117 W 32nd Ave N Sheridan Blvd 4.08 0.024

118 19th St Curtis St 4.08 0.024

119 E Colfax Ave N Quebec St 4.07 0.024

120 W Mississippi Ave S Platte River Dr 4.04 0.024

121 38th St Arkins Ct 4 0.024

122 E 6th Ave N Monaco St 4 0.024

123 S Santa Fe Dr W Iowa Ave 4 0.024

124 S Colorado Blvd E Cherry Creek North Dr 3.99 0.024

125 N Broadway W 3rd Ave 3.97 0.024

126 N Colorado Blvd E 14th Ave 3.95 0.024

127 N Colorado Blvd E 40th Ave 3.94 0.024

128 E Hampden Ave S Monaco St 3.94 0.024

225

Rank Intersection Name N-CSL Weighted

129 N Monaco St E 17th Ave 3.93 0.024

130 E Colfax Ave N Elizabeth St 3.93 0.024

131 N Federal Blvd W 10th Ave 3.93 0.024

132 Morrison Rd W Kentucky Ave 3.93 0.024

133 E Florida Ave S Holly St 3.93 0.024

134 N Sheridan Blvd W 52nd Ave 3.92 0.024

135 22nd St Arapahoe St 3.86 0.023

136 N Havana St E 47th Ave 3.84 0.023

137 N Colorado Blvd E 48th Ave 3.82 0.023

138 N Colorado Blvd E Colfax Ave 3.82 0.023

139 N Lipan St W 38th Ave 3.8 0.023

140 W 32nd Ave N Federal Blvd 3.8 0.023

141 N Lowell Blvd W 29th Ave 3.8 0.023

142 N Monaco St E 26th Ave 3.8 0.023

143 N Quebec St E 23rd Ave 3.8 0.023

144 E Alameda Ave S Downing St 3.8 0.023

145 N Federal Blvd W 52nd Ave 3.79 0.023

146 W Colfax Ave N Kalamath St 3.77 0.023

147 N Vasquez Blvd E 48th Ave 3.73 0.022

148 N Dahlia St E Stapleton North Dr 3.73 0.022

149 N Sheridan Blvd W 44th Ave 3.71 0.022

150 N Lincoln St E 19th Ave 3.71 0.022

151 N Peoria St E 47th Ave 3.7 0.022

152 N Brighton Blvd 38th St 3.69 0.022

153 N Peoria St E Andrews Dr 3.68 0.022

154 S Colorado Blvd E Iowa Ave 3.68 0.022

155 20th St Market St 3.67 0.022

156 E 14th Ave N Downing St 3.67 0.022

157 W 38th Ave N Fox St 3.66 0.022

158 E Alameda Ave S Quebec St 3.66 0.022

159 N Peoria St Interstate 70 3.64 0.022

160 N Steele St E 40th Ave 3.64 0.022

161 N Federal Blvd W 46th Ave 3.59 0.022

162 22nd St Larimer St 3.59 0.022

163 N Clarkson St E 18th Ave 3.59 0.022

164 S Steele St E Bayaud Ave 3.58 0.021

165 E 46th Ave N York St 3.57 0.021

166 E Smith Rd N Monaco St 3.57 0.021

167 E Martin Luther King Blvd N Monaco St 3.56 0.021

168 W 38th Ave N Lowell Blvd 3.55 0.021

169 N Lincoln St E 14th Ave 3.54 0.021

170 W Alameda Ave S Kalamath St 3.54 0.021

171 N Quebec St E Smith Rd 3.53 0.021

226

Rank Intersection Name N-CSL Weighted

172 N Havana St E 45th Ave 3.5 0.021

173 W 38th Ave N Zuni St 3.5 0.021

174 N Broadway Blake St 3.5 0.021

175 E 16th Ave N York St 3.5 0.021

176 S Broadway W Alameda Ave 3.5 0.021

177 20th St Welton St 3.44 0.021

178 E Montview Blvd N Quebec St 3.43 0.021

179 W Colfax Ave 7th St 3.43 0.021

180 N Quebec St E 35th Ave 3.42 0.021

181 N Federal Blvd N Speer Blvd 3.41 0.020

182 N Speer Blvd Auraria Pkwy 3.41 0.020

183 E 56th Ave Pena Blvd 3.4 0.020

184 W 38th Ave N Tejon St 3.38 0.020

185 N Federal Blvd W 33rd Ave 3.38 0.020

186 Welton St 15th St 3.38 0.020

187 E 14th Ave N York St 3.35 0.020

188 N Colorado Blvd E 23rd Ave 3.34 0.020

189 N Tower Rd E 56th Ave 3.3 0.020

190 N Pecos St Interstate 70 3.29 0.020

191 W 38th Ave N Navajo St 3.29 0.020

192 W 38th Ave N Tennyson St 3.29 0.020

193 20th St Blake St 3.29 0.020

194 S Santa Fe Dr W Mississippi Ave 3.29 0.020

195 E Martin Luther King Blvd N Quebec St 3.27 0.020

196 E 6th Ave N Lincoln St 3.25 0.020

197 N Quebec St N Sand Creek Rd 3.24 0.019

198 N Washington St E 46th Ave 3.23 0.019

199 15th St Tremont Pl 3.23 0.019

200 Leetsdale Dr S Quebec St 3.23 0.019

201 Park Ave W N Globeville Rd 3.18 0.019

202 W 50th Ave N Lowell Blvd 3.17 0.019

203 N Colorado Blvd E 35th Ave 3.17 0.019

204 15th St Stout St 3.17 0.019

205 S Federal Blvd W Jewell Ave 3.16 0.019

206 S Colorado Blvd E Evans Ave 3.15 0.019

207 N Colorado Blvd E 17th Ave 3.14 0.019

208 N Federal Blvd W 41st Ave 3.13 0.019

209 N Sheridan Blvd W 38th Ave 3.13 0.019

210 Park Ave W Blake St 3.13 0.019

211 20th St Lawrence St 3.13 0.019

212 W 8th Ave N Speer Blvd 3.13 0.019

213 E 40th Ave N Chambers Rd 3.09 0.019

214 E 1st Ave N Steele St 3.09 0.019

227

Rank Intersection Name N-CSL Weighted

215 S Colorado Blvd E Arkansas Ave 3.09 0.019

216 S University Blvd E Alameda Ave 3.07 0.018

217 N Havana St E 40th Ave 3.06 0.018

218 N Peoria St E 45th Ave 3.04 0.018

219 N Washington St E 45th Ave 3.04 0.018

220 W 46th Ave N Pecos St 3.03 0.018

221 N Colorado Blvd E 3rd Ave 3.02 0.018

222 E Mississippi Ave S Colorado Blvd 3.02 0.018

223 N Holly St E Stapleton North Dr 3 0.018

224 15th St Platte St 3 0.018

225 E Colfax Ave N Monaco St 3 0.018

226 N Sheridan Blvd W 1st Ave 3 0.018

227 S Monaco St Leetsdale Dr 2.99 0.018

228 E Mississippi Ave S Parker Rd 2.98 0.018

229 N Broadway E 17th Ave 2.96 0.018

230 E Colfax Ave N York St 2.95 0.018

231 N Federal Blvd W 14th Ave 2.94 0.018

232 S Federal Blvd W Mississippi Ave 2.94 0.018

233 N Federal Blvd W 38th Ave 2.93 0.018

234 N Speer Blvd Blake St 2.93 0.018

235 E Alameda Ave S Lincoln St 2.93 0.018

236 N Peoria St E 37th Ave 2.92 0.018

237 N Monaco St E 8th Ave 2.92 0.018

238 N Tower Rd E 43rd Ave 2.9 0.017

239 N Colorado Blvd E 1st Ave 2.88 0.017

240 N Broadway Welton St 2.84 0.017

241 E Evans Ave S Downing St 2.84 0.017

242 E Alameda Ave Leetsdale Dr 2.83 0.017

243 S Sheridan Blvd W Jewell Ave 2.83 0.017

244 N Sheridan Blvd W 48th Ave 2.82 0.017

245 N Dahlia St E Stapleton South Dr 2.82 0.017

246 N Colorado Blvd E 26th Ave 2.82 0.017

247 N Colorado Blvd E 8th Ave 2.82 0.017

248 W 8th Ave N Broadway 2.82 0.017

249 15th St Champa St 2.79 0.017

250 W Colfax Ave Welton St 2.78 0.017

251 S Colorado Blvd E Mexico Ave 2.78 0.017

252 E Stapleton North Dr N Monaco St 2.75 0.017

253 N Peoria St Interstate 70 2.75 0.017

254 N Peoria St E 39th Ave 2.75 0.017

255 Walnut St 38th St 2.75 0.017

256 N Colorado Blvd E Martin Luther King Blvd 2.75 0.017

257 E 18th Ave N Franklin St 2.75 0.017

228

Rank Intersection Name N-CSL Weighted

258 N University Blvd E Evans Ave 2.73 0.016

259 N Logan St E 13th Ave 2.72 0.016

260 E 6th Ave N Colorado Blvd 2.72 0.016

261 S Colorado Blvd E Louisiana Ave 2.71 0.016

262 S Colorado Blvd E Alameda Ave 2.7 0.016

263 E Stapleton South Dr N Holly St 2.69 0.016

264 E 40th Ave N York St 2.69 0.016

265 E 14th Ave N Washington St 2.69 0.016

266 N Quebec St E 36th Ave 2.68 0.016

267 E 13th Ave N Grant St 2.67 0.016

268 E Colfax Ave N Logan St 2.66 0.016

269 S Broadway E Ohio Ave 2.66 0.016

270 S Broadway E Evans Ave 2.66 0.016

271 W 6th Ave N Broadway 2.64 0.016

272 Leetsdale Dr S Holly St 2.63 0.016

273 N Federal Blvd W 29th Ave 2.6 0.016

274 E 13th Ave N Downing St 2.6 0.016

275 N Kalamath St W 7th Ave 2.6 0.016

276 Leetsdale Dr S Oneida St 2.59 0.016

277 N Quebec St E 14th Ave 2.58 0.015

278 N Broadway E 14th Ave 2.56 0.015

279 22nd St N Broadway 2.55 0.015

280 W Colfax Ave N Mariposa St 2.55 0.015

281 N Colorado Blvd E 13th Ave 2.54 0.015

282 N Washington St Interstate 70 2.53 0.015

283 W 7th Ave N Santa Fe Dr 2.53 0.015

284 E Alameda Ave S Monaco St 2.51 0.015

285 N Quebec St Interstate 70 2.45 0.015

286 N Broadway E 19th Ave 2.39 0.014

287 N Federal Blvd W 17th Ave 2.36 0.014

288 N Broadway Champa St 2.35 0.014

289 N Lincoln St E 17th Ave 2.3 0.014

290 Blake St 22nd St 2.27 0.014

291 N Sheridan Blvd W 14th Ave 2.27 0.014

292 N Kalamath St W 6th Ave 2.26 0.014

293 17th St Welton St 2.25 0.014

294 N Lincoln St E 13th Ave 2.21 0.013

295 S Broadway W Kentucky Ave 2.2 0.013

296 N Sheridan Blvd Interstate 70 2 0.012

297 N Colorado Blvd Interstate 70 2 0.012

298 N Steele St E 45th Ave 2 0.012

299 N Quebec St Interstate 70 2 0.012

300 N Havana St Interstate 70 2 0.012

229

Rank Intersection Name N-CSL Weighted

301 W 44th Ave N Irving St 2 0.012

302 N Quebec St E 53rd Pl 1.95 0.012

303 E 47th Ave N Dallas St 1.75 0.011

304 E 56th Ave N Havana St 1.53 0.009

305 E 56th Ave N Quebec St 1.42 0.009

306 N Washington St E 51st Ave 1.33 0.008

307 N Washington St E 50th Ave 1.33 0.008

308 E 56th Ave N Peoria St 1.25 0.008

309 E 53rd Ave N Chambers Rd 1.2 0.007

Note: Intersections highlighted in yellow are referred to current RLC locations

230

Table 63 Denver intersections ranked based on crash severity level.

Rank Intersection Name CSL Weighted

1 W Colfax Ave N Kalamath St 517 0.050

2 Leetsdale Dr S Quebec St 472 0.046

3 S Monaco St Leetsdale Dr 461 0.045

4 W Mississippi Ave S Platte River Dr 428 0.041

5 E 6th Ave N Lincoln St 422 0.041

6 S Federal Blvd W Alameda Ave 418 0.040

7 N Colorado Blvd E Colfax Ave 416 0.040

8 S University Blvd E Evans Ave 270 0.038

9 S Federal Blvd W Florida Ave 346 0.033

10 N Colorado Blvd E 14th Ave 328 0.032

11 N Peoria St E 47th Ave 326 0.032

12 E Alameda Ave S Quebec St 318 0.031

13 E Hampden Ave S Tamarac Dr 299 0.029

14 N Sheridan Blvd W Colfax Ave 297 0.029

15 W 8th Ave N Speer Blvd 282 0.027

16 N Speer Blvd W 14th Ave 276 0.027

17 N Colorado Blvd E 17th Ave 273 0.026

18 E 6th Ave N Colorado Blvd 272 0.026

19 S Colorado Blvd E Cherry Creek North Dr 271 0.026

20 S Colorado Blvd E Evans Ave 271 0.026

21 N University Blvd E 1st Ave 393 0.026

22 W Alameda Ave S Kalamath St 269 0.026

23 N Colorado Blvd E 3rd Ave 266 0.026

24 N Colorado Blvd E 1st Ave 265 0.026

25 E Alameda Ave S Monaco St 264 0.026

26 E Hampden Ave S Yosemite St 259 0.025

27 S Santa Fe Dr W Mississippi Ave 253 0.024

28 E Colfax Ave N Quebec St 248 0.024

29 E Hampden Ave S Locust St 246 0.024

30 W Evans Ave S Sheridan Blvd 245 0.024

31 E 31st Ave N York St 243 0.024

32 S Colorado Blvd E Alameda Ave 243 0.024

33 S Colorado Blvd E Louisiana Ave 241 0.023

34 W Colfax Ave 7th St 237 0.023

35 E Martin Luther King Blvd N Quebec St 232 0.022

36 E Alameda Ave E Fairmount Dr 231 0.022

37 W 44th Ave N Lowell Blvd 225 0.022

38 E 46th Ave N Steele St 222 0.021

39 N Monaco St E Stapleton South Dr 217 0.021

40 S Broadway W Mississippi Ave 217 0.021

41 S Colorado Blvd E Iowa Ave 217 0.021

42 E Colfax Ave N Monaco St 216 0.021

231

Rank Intersection Name CSL Weighted

43 E Alameda Ave Leetsdale Dr 215 0.021

44 W Alameda Ave S Perry St 210 0.020

45 W Alameda Ave S Knox Ct 210 0.020

46 W Alameda Ave S Yuma St 208 0.020

47 N Colorado Blvd E 40th Ave 201 0.019

48 N Colorado Blvd E Montview Blvd 201 0.019

49 E Hampden Ave S Monaco St 201 0.019

50 S Santa Fe Dr W Florida Ave 200 0.019

51 N Federal Blvd W 38th Ave 199 0.019

52 N Colorado Blvd E Martin Luther King Blvd 198 0.019

53 S Federal Blvd W Mississippi Ave 197 0.019

54 S Federal Blvd W Jewell Ave 196 0.019

55 N Federal Blvd W 44th Ave 195 0.019

56 S Broadway E Ohio Ave 195 0.019

57 S Colorado Blvd E Mexico Ave 192 0.019

58 W 38th Ave N Irving St 189 0.018

59 S Broadway W Alameda Ave 189 0.018

60 W Florida Ave S Irving St 189 0.018

61 N Quebec St N Sand Creek Rd 188 0.018

62 N Colorado Blvd E 8th Ave 186 0.018

63 W 8th Ave N Broadway 186 0.018

64 E Martin Luther King Blvd N Monaco St 185 0.018

65 W 6th Ave N Broadway 185 0.018

66 E Alameda Ave S Washington St 184 0.018

67 S University Blvd E Alameda Ave 181 0.018

68 S Broadway E Evans Ave 181 0.018

69 S Colorado Blvd E Arkansas Ave 179 0.017

70 W 50th Ave N Federal Blvd 177 0.017

71 E Hampden Ave S Dayton St 177 0.017

72 E 46th Ave N Josephine St 176 0.017

73 E 14th Ave N Josephine St 175 0.017

74 S Colorado Blvd E Yale Ave 175 0.017

75 N Speer Blvd Auraria Pkwy 174 0.017

76 Park Ave W Interstate 25 172 0.017

77 N York St E 26th Ave 171 0.017

78 N Quebec St E Smith Rd 166 0.016

79 N Federal Blvd W 10th Ave 165 0.016

80 S Federal Blvd W Kentucky Ave 164 0.016

81 E Evans Ave S Quebec St 162 0.016

82 W 26th Ave N Irving St 160 0.015

83 E Mississippi Ave S Colorado Blvd 160 0.015

84 N Colorado Blvd E 23rd Ave 157 0.015

85 W Alameda Ave S Sheridan Blvd 155 0.015

232

Rank Intersection Name CSL Weighted

86 N Sheridan Blvd W 17th Ave 153 0.015

87 S Sheridan Blvd W Jewell Ave 153 0.015

88 E Montview Blvd N Quebec St 151 0.015

89 W 38th Ave N Pecos St 150 0.015

90 20th St Lawrence St 150 0.015

91 Leetsdale Dr S Holly St 150 0.015

92 22nd St Lawrence St 149 0.014

93 N Speer Blvd W 29th Ave 148 0.014

94 N Chambers Rd E 46th Ave 147 0.014

95 N Federal Blvd W 26th Ave 147 0.014

96 N Lincoln St E 14th Ave 145 0.014

97 S Santa Fe Dr W Iowa Ave 144 0.014

98 S Steele St E Bayaud Ave 143 0.014

99 N Monaco St E 14th Ave 142 0.014

100 N Federal Blvd W 14th Ave 141 0.014

101 N Speer Blvd N Bannock St 140 0.014

102 W 38th Ave N Fox St 139 0.013

103 N Broadway E 17th Ave 139 0.013

104 E Mississippi Ave S Parker Rd 137 0.013

105 E 14th Ave N York St 134 0.013

106 W 32nd Ave N Federal Blvd 133 0.013

107 N Peoria St E 39th Ave 132 0.013

108 S Colorado Blvd E Ohio Ave 131 0.013

109 S Federal Blvd W Virginia Ave 129 0.012

110 N Grant St E 14th Ave 127 0.012

111 N Colorado Blvd E 13th Ave 127 0.012

112 N Broadway W 3rd Ave 127 0.012

113 N Sheridan Blvd W 38th Ave 125 0.012

114 22nd St N Broadway 125 0.012

115 N Broadway W 1st Ave 125 0.012

116 N Federal Blvd W 1st Ave 125 0.012

117 N Havana St E 47th Ave 123 0.012

118 E 1st Ave N Saint Paul St 123 0.012

119 N Tower Rd E 56th Ave 122 0.012

120 Park Ave W N Globeville Rd 121 0.012

121 Leetsdale Dr S Oneida St 119 0.012

122 N Brighton Blvd 38th St 118 0.011

123 W Colfax Ave N Irving St 118 0.011

124 18th St Blake St 117 0.011

125 E 13th Ave N Josephine St 117 0.011

126 N Kalamath St W 7th Ave 117 0.011

127 E Speer Blvd N Corona St 117 0.011

128 N Peoria St E 37th Ave 114 0.011

233

Rank Intersection Name CSL Weighted

129 E Colfax Ave N Washington St 114 0.011

130 N Monaco St E 8th Ave 114 0.011

131 Green Valley Ranch Blvd N Himalaya Rd 113 0.011

132 N Dahlia St E Stapleton North Dr 112 0.011

133 22nd St Arapahoe St 112 0.011

134 E Colfax Ave N York St 112 0.011

135 W Alameda Ave S Platte River Dr 111 0.011

136 Morrison Rd W Kentucky Ave 110 0.011

137 N Federal Blvd N Speer Blvd 109 0.011

138 E Colfax Ave N Logan St 109 0.011

139 S Broadway E Ohio Ave 109 0.011

140 N Quebec St E 36th Ave 107 0.010

141 Market St 18th St 107 0.010

142 W 46th Ave N Pecos St 106 0.010

143 E 13th Ave N Washington St 105 0.010

144 N Lincoln St E 12th Ave 104 0.010

145 N Peoria St E Andrews Dr 103 0.010

146 W 38th Ave N Lowell Blvd 103 0.010

147 W 10th Ave N Knox Ct 103 0.010

148 E 40th Ave N Chambers Rd 102 0.010

149 E 1st Ave N Steele St 102 0.010

150 S Broadway W Kentucky Ave 101 0.010

151 N Colorado Blvd E 29th Ave 100 0.010

152 20th St Market St 99 0.010

153 E 14th Ave N Downing St 99 0.010

154 N Quebec St Interstate 70 98 0.009

155 N Quebec St E 23rd Ave 95 0.009

156 15th St Champa St 95 0.009

157 E Alameda Ave S Havana St 94 0.009

158 N Lincoln St E 13th Ave 93 0.009

159 20th St Blake St 92 0.009

160 N Broadway Welton St 91 0.009

161 E Evans Ave S Downing St 91 0.009

162 N Tower Rd Pena Blvd 88 0.009

163 E 46th Ave N Clayton St 88 0.009

164 Welton St 15th St 88 0.009

165 E 51st Ave N Peoria St 87 0.008

166 E 8th Ave N Clarkson St 87 0.008

167 20th St Welton St 86 0.008

168 N Speer Blvd Blake St 85 0.008

169 E 6th Ave N Corona St 85 0.008

170 E Alameda Ave S Lincoln St 85 0.008

171 W Colfax Ave N Mariposa St 84 0.008

234

Rank Intersection Name CSL Weighted

172 Tremont Pl 17th St 83 0.008

173 E 46th Ave N York St 82 0.008

174 N Washington St E 45th Ave 82 0.008

175 E Smith Rd N Monaco St 82 0.008

176 N Broadway E 14th Ave 82 0.008

177 N Holly St E Stapleton North Dr 81 0.008

178 17th St Welton St 81 0.008

179 Park Ave E 17th Ave 81 0.008

180 N Sheridan Blvd W 1st Ave 81 0.008

181 N Peoria St Interstate 70 80 0.008

182 N Quebec St E 14th Ave 80 0.008

183 E 14th Ave N Logan St 80 0.008

184 N Federal Blvd W 46th Ave 79 0.008

185 N Peoria St E 45th Ave 79 0.008

186 N Kalamath St W 6th Ave 79 0.008

187 N Sheridan Blvd W 44th Ave 78 0.008

188 N Federal Blvd W 29th Ave 78 0.008

189 N Lincoln St E 19th Ave 78 0.008

190 E 13th Ave N Downing St 78 0.008

191 E 26th Ave N Downing St 76 0.007

192 E Alameda Ave S Downing St 76 0.007

193 Park Ave W Blake St 75 0.007

194 Blake St 22nd St 75 0.007

195 N Sheridan Blvd W 14th Ave 75 0.007

196 E Evans Ave S High St 75 0.007

197 N Colorado Blvd E 35th Ave 73 0.007

198 15th St Stout St 73 0.007

199 N Federal Blvd W 52nd Ave 72 0.007

200 N Quebec St Interstate 70 72 0.007

201 E 13th Ave N Grant St 72 0.007

202 E 6th Ave N Monaco St 72 0.007

203 N Washington St E 46th Ave 71 0.007

204 15th St Tremont Pl 71 0.007

205 E 40th Ave N York St 70 0.007

206 N Lincoln St E 17th Ave 69 0.007

207 N Vasquez Blvd E 52nd Ave 68 0.007

208 N Havana St E 51st Ave 68 0.007

209 N Washington St Interstate 70 68 0.007

210 W 46th Ave N Lowell Blvd 68 0.007

211 N Sheridan Blvd W 46th Ave 68 0.007

212 N Logan St E 13th Ave 68 0.007

213 W 48th Ave N Pecos St 67 0.006

214 N Sheridan Blvd W 29th Ave 66 0.006

235

Rank Intersection Name CSL Weighted

215 N Quebec St E 26th Ave 66 0.006

216 E 18th Ave N Franklin St 66 0.006

217 N Colorado Blvd E 48th Ave 65 0.006

218 N Quebec St E 35th Ave 65 0.006

219 E 8th Ave N Corona St 65 0.006

220 W Colfax Ave Welton St 64 0.006

221 N Quebec St E 8th Ave 64 0.006

222 W 38th Ave N Zuni St 63 0.006

223 E 16th Ave N York St 63 0.006

224 N Sheridan Blvd W 48th Ave 62 0.006

225 N Dahlia St E Stapleton South Dr 62 0.006

226 N Colorado Blvd E 26th Ave 62 0.006

227 E 13th Ave N Syracuse St 62 0.006

228 22nd St Larimer St 61 0.006

229 N Broadway Champa St 61 0.006

230 N Clarkson St E 18th Ave 61 0.006

231 N Federal Blvd W 17th Ave 59 0.006

232 N Speer Blvd Elitch Cir 58 0.006

233 N Lowell Blvd W 29th Ave 57 0.006

234 Park Ave W Tremont Pl 57 0.006

235 N Vasquez Blvd E 48th Ave 56 0.005

236 E 14th Ave N Pearl St 56 0.005

237 N Colorado Blvd E 12th Ave 56 0.005

238 N Broadway E 19th Ave 55 0.005

239 N Monaco St E 17th Ave 55 0.005

240 E Colfax Ave N Elizabeth St 55 0.005

241 E Florida Ave S Holly St 55 0.005

242 15th St Platte St 54 0.005

243 Glenarm Pl 14th St 54 0.005

244 W 32nd Ave N Sheridan Blvd 53 0.005

245 19th St Curtis St 53 0.005

246 N Havana St E 40th Ave 52 0.005

247 W 38th Ave N Clay St 52 0.005

248 N Yosemite St E 17th Ave 52 0.005

249 E 56th Ave Pena Blvd 51 0.005

250 N Sheridan Blvd W 52nd Ave 51 0.005

251 N Federal Blvd Interstate 70 51 0.005

252 N Tennyson St W 44th Ave 51 0.005

253 E 17th Ave N Downing St 51 0.005

254 E 28th Ave N York St 50 0.005

255 Park Ave E 19th Ave 50 0.005

256 N Federal Blvd W 35th Ave 47 0.005

257 W 38th Ave N Tennyson St 46 0.004

236

Rank Intersection Name CSL Weighted

258 Arapahoe St 18th St 46 0.004

259 N Colorado Blvd Interstate 70 45 0.004

260 W 38th Ave N Tejon St 44 0.004

261 N Federal Blvd W 33rd Ave 44 0.004

262 N Quebec St E 53rd Pl 43 0.004

263 N Washington St Interstate 70 43 0.004

264 19th St Blake St 43 0.004

265 W 7th Ave N Santa Fe Dr 43 0.004

266 N Broadway Blake St 42 0.004

267 W 46th Ave N Zuni St 41 0.004

268 N Steele St E 40th Ave 40 0.004

269 W 50th Ave N Lowell Blvd 38 0.004

270 N Lipan St W 38th Ave 38 0.004

271 38th St Arkins Ct 36 0.003

272 E Stapleton South Dr N Holly St 35 0.003

273 E 14th Ave N Washington St 35 0.003

274 15th St Central St 34 0.003

275 E Stapleton North Dr N Monaco St 33 0.003

276 N Peoria St Interstate 70 33 0.003

277 Walnut St 38th St 33 0.003

278 California St 16th St 33 0.003

279 N Vasquez Blvd N Steele St 30 0.003

280 E 9th Ave N Downing St 30 0.003

281 N Tower Rd E 43rd Ave 29 0.003

282 N Havana St Interstate 70 28 0.003

283 W 29th Ave N Irving St 28 0.003

284 N Broadway Larimer St 28 0.003

285 W 48th Ave N Zuni St 26 0.003

286 N Steele St E 45th Ave 26 0.003

287 N Washington St Ringsby Ct 26 0.003

288 N Federal Blvd W 41st Ave 25 0.002

289 N Corona St E 14th Ave 24 0.002

290 E 56th Ave N Havana St 23 0.002

291 N Pecos St Interstate 70 23 0.002

292 W 38th Ave N Navajo St 23 0.002

293 N Havana St E 45th Ave 21 0.002

294 N Colorado Blvd Interstate 70 20 0.002

295 N Monaco St E 26th Ave 19 0.002

296 E 56th Ave N Quebec St 17 0.002

297 N Tennyson St W 46th Ave 17 0.002

298 N Downing St Walnut St 17 0.002

299 W 38th Ave N Perry St 17 0.002

300 W 44th Ave N Irving St 16 0.002

237

Rank Intersection Name CSL Weighted

301 N Sheridan Blvd W 41st Ave 15 0.001

302 W 52nd Ave N Pecos St 14 0.001

303 N Pecos St W 42nd Ave 13 0.001

304 N Washington St E 50th Ave 8 0.001

305 E 47th Ave N Dallas St 7 0.001

306 E 53rd Ave N Chambers Rd 6 0.001

307 E 56th Ave N Peoria St 5 0.000

308 N Washington St E 51st Ave 4 0.000

309 N Sheridan Blvd Interstate 70 4 0.000

Note: Intersections highlighted in yellow are referred to current RLC locations

238

Table 64 Analysis of potential for improvement for Denver intersections based on crash rate and frequency.

Est'd

Total Annual Annual Est'd Annual PFI PFI

Inter # Intersection Name AADT (10-12) Crashes Crashes Crash Rate Crash Rate Crashes Crash Rate Crash Freq

1 N Tower Rd Pena Blvd 24474 16 5.3 0.60 1.03 9.2 -0.43 -3.9

2 N Tower Rd E 56th Ave 16066 37 12.3 2.10 1.27 7.5 0.83 4.9

3 E 56th Ave Pena Blvd 10833 15 5.0 1.26 1.54 6.1 -0.28 -1.1

4 E 56th Ave N Havana St 5911 15 5.0 2.32 2.09 4.5 0.23 0.5

5 E 56th Ave N Peoria St 2047 4 1.3 1.78 3.52 2.6 -1.74 -1.3

6 E 56th Ave N Quebec St 19322 12 4.0 0.57 1.16 8.2 -0.59 -4.2

7 N Quebec St E 53rd Pl 19555 22 7.3 1.03 1.15 8.2 -0.13 -0.9

8 E 53rd Ave N Chambers Rd 2207 5 1.7 2.07 3.40 2.7 -1.33 -1.1

9 N Vasquez Blvd E 52nd Ave 17050 11 3.7 0.59 1.23 7.7 -0.64 -4.0

10 W 52nd Ave N Pecos St 2648 2 0.7 0.69 3.10 3.0 -2.41 -2.3

11 N Federal Blvd W 52nd Ave 34203 19 6.3 0.51 0.87 10.9 -0.37 -4.6

12 N Sheridan Blvd W 52nd Ave 33049 13 4.3 0.36 0.89 10.7 -0.53 -6.4

13 N Havana St E 51st Ave 7558 11 3.7 1.33 1.85 5.1 -0.52 -1.4

14 E 51st Ave N Peoria St 7417 21 7.0 2.59 1.86 5.0 0.72 2.0

15 N Washington St E 51st Ave 14105 3 1.0 0.19 1.36 7.0 -1.16 -6.0

16 N Washington St E 50th Ave 14204 6 2.0 0.39 1.35 7.0 -0.97 -5.0

17 W 50th Ave N Federal Blvd 36777 38 12.7 0.94 0.84 11.3 0.10 1.3

18 W 50th Ave N Lowell Blvd 14527 12 4.0 0.75 1.34 7.1 -0.58 -3.1

19 N Peoria St E Andrews Dr 27548 28 9.3 0.93 0.97 9.8 -0.05 -0.5

20 N Federal Blvd Interstate 70 26601 12 4.0 0.41 0.99 9.6 -0.58 -5.6

21

Green Valley Ranch

Blvd N Himalaya Rd 27393 16 5.3 0.53 0.98 9.8 -0.44 -4.4

22 N Vasquez Blvd E 48th Ave 17081 15 5.0 0.80 1.23 7.7 -0.43 -2.7

23 N Colorado Blvd E 48th Ave 26754 17 5.7 0.58 0.99 9.6 -0.41 -4.0

24 W 48th Ave N Zuni St 4720 4 1.3 0.77 2.33 4.0 -1.56 -2.7

25 W 48th Ave N Pecos St 20429 16 5.3 0.72 1.13 8.4 -0.41 -3.1

239

Est'd

Total Annual Annual Est'd Annual PFI PFI

Inter # Intersection Name AADT (10-12) Crashes Crashes Crash Rate Crash Rate Crashes Crash Rate Crash Freq

26 N Sheridan Blvd Interstate 70 12930 2 0.7 0.14 1.42 6.7 -1.27 -6.0

27 N Sheridan Blvd W 48th Ave 33358 22 7.3 0.60 0.89 10.8 -0.28 -3.4

28 N Peoria St E 47th Ave 39972 88 29.3 2.01 0.81 11.8 1.20 17.5

29 N Havana St E 47th Ave 12714 32 10.7 2.30 1.43 6.6 0.87 4.0

30 N Pecos St Interstate 70 12233 7 2.3 0.52 1.45 6.5 -0.93 -4.2

31 E 47th Ave N Dallas St 9033 4 1.3 0.40 1.69 5.6 -1.29 -4.2

32 N Quebec St N Sand Creek Rd 35723 58 19.3 1.48 0.86 11.2 0.63 8.2

33 N Vasquez Blvd N Steele St 15263 6 2.0 0.36 1.30 7.3 -0.94 -5.3

34 N Washington St E 46th Ave 14088 22 7.3 1.43 1.36 7.0 0.07 0.4

35 N Colorado Blvd Interstate 70 14753 9 3.0 0.56 1.33 7.1 -0.77 -4.1

36 N Dahlia St E Stapleton North Dr 13433 30 10.0 2.04 1.39 6.8 0.65 3.2

37 E 46th Ave N Josephine St 13483 26 8.7 1.76 1.39 6.8 0.37 1.8

38 E 46th Ave N Steele St 13815 36 12.0 2.38 1.37 6.9 1.01 5.1

39 E 46th Ave N Clayton St 3031 9 3.0 2.71 2.90 3.2 -0.19 -0.2

40 E 46th Ave N York St 10730 23 7.7 1.96 1.55 6.1 0.41 1.6

41 N Federal Blvd W 46th Ave 35485 22 7.3 0.57 0.86 11.1 -0.29 -3.8

42 W 46th Ave N Pecos St 22188 35 11.7 1.44 1.08 8.8 0.36 2.9

43 W 46th Ave N Zuni St 4440 7 2.3 1.44 2.40 3.9 -0.96 -1.6

44 N Washington St Interstate 70 20902 8 2.7 0.35 1.12 8.5 -0.77 -5.8

45 W 46th Ave N Lowell Blvd 7110 16 5.3 2.06 1.90 4.9 0.15 0.4

46 N Dahlia St E Stapleton South Dr 8273 22 7.3 2.43 1.77 5.3 0.66 2.0

47 N Tennyson St W 46th Ave 11001 4 1.3 0.33 1.53 6.2 -1.20 -4.8

48 N Sheridan Blvd W 46th Ave 33077 7 2.3 0.19 0.89 10.7 -0.70 -8.4

49 N Quebec St Interstate 70 33116 40 13.3 1.10 0.89 10.7 0.21 2.6

50 N Havana St E 45th Ave 12548 6 2.0 0.44 1.44 6.6 -1.00 -4.6

51 N Colorado Blvd Interstate 70 25710 10 3.3 0.36 1.01 9.5 -0.65 -6.1

52 N Washington St Interstate 70 22833 17 5.7 0.68 1.07 8.9 -0.39 -3.2

53 N Steele St E 45th Ave 14480 13 4.3 0.82 1.34 7.1 -0.52 -2.7

240

Est'd

Total Annual Annual Est'd Annual PFI PFI

Inter # Intersection Name AADT (10-12) Crashes Crashes Crash Rate Crash Rate Crashes Crash Rate Crash Freq

54 E Stapleton North Dr N Monaco St 5732 12 4.0 1.91 2.12 4.4 -0.21 -0.4

55 N Holly St E Stapleton North Dr 27373 27 9.0 0.90 0.98 9.8 -0.08 -0.8

56 N Peoria St E 45th Ave 26870 26 8.7 0.88 0.99 9.7 -0.10 -1.0

57 N Washington St E 45th Ave 15308 27 9.0 1.61 1.30 7.3 0.31 1.7

58 N Monaco St E Stapleton South Dr 28373 50 16.7 1.61 0.96 9.9 0.65 6.7

59 E Stapleton South Dr N Holly St 17283 13 4.3 0.69 1.23 7.7 -0.54 -3.4

60 N Quebec St Interstate 70 22834 36 12.0 1.44 1.07 8.9 0.37 3.1

61 N Havana St Interstate 70 35562 14 4.7 0.36 0.86 11.1 -0.50 -6.5

62 N Chambers Rd E 46th Ave 14442 24 8.0 1.52 1.34 7.1 0.18 0.9

63 W 44th Ave N Lowell Blvd 5969 9 3.0 1.38 2.08 4.5 -0.70 -1.5

64 W 44th Ave N Irving St 5498 8 2.7 1.33 2.16 4.3 -0.83 -1.7

65 N Federal Blvd W 44th Ave 35536 30 10.0 0.77 0.86 11.1 -0.09 -1.1

66 N Tennyson St W 44th Ave 9712 12 4.0 1.13 1.63 5.8 -0.50 -1.8

67 N Washington St Ringsby Ct 5146 4 1.3 0.71 2.23 4.2 -1.52 -2.9

68 N Sheridan Blvd W 44th Ave 37134 21 7.0 0.52 0.84 11.4 -0.32 -4.4

69 N Tower Rd E 43rd Ave 21744 10 3.3 0.42 1.09 8.7 -0.67 -5.4

70 N Peoria St Interstate 70 62204 22 7.3 0.32 0.65 14.8 -0.33 -7.4

71 38th St Arkins Ct 6483 9 3.0 1.27 1.99 4.7 -0.72 -1.7

72 N Pecos St W 42nd Ave 20381 2 0.7 0.09 1.13 8.4 -1.04 -7.7

73 E 40th Ave N Chambers Rd 26699 33 11.0 1.13 0.99 9.6 0.14 1.4

74 N Peoria St Interstate 70 42733 12 4.0 0.26 0.78 12.2 -0.53 -8.2

75 N Havana St E 40th Ave 14319 17 5.7 1.08 1.35 7.0 -0.26 -1.4

76 E Smith Rd N Monaco St 5073 23 7.7 4.14 2.25 4.2 1.89 3.5

77 N Colorado Blvd E 40th Ave 51939 51 17.0 0.90 0.71 13.5 0.19 3.5

78 N Steele St E 40th Ave 16532 11 3.7 0.61 1.25 7.6 -0.65 -3.9

79 E 40th Ave N York St 17016 26 8.7 1.40 1.24 7.7 0.16 1.0

80 N Brighton Blvd 38th St 15262 32 10.7 1.91 1.30 7.3 0.61 3.4

81 N Federal Blvd W 41st Ave 34186 8 2.7 0.21 0.87 10.9 -0.66 -8.2

241

Est'd

Total Annual Annual Est'd Annual PFI PFI

Inter # Intersection Name AADT (10-12) Crashes Crashes Crash Rate Crash Rate Crashes Crash Rate Crash Freq

82 N Sheridan Blvd W 41st Ave 35557 3 1.0 0.08 0.86 11.1 -0.78 -10.1

83 N Quebec St E Smith Rd 11868 47 15.7 3.62 1.48 6.4 2.14 9.3

84 N Peoria St E 39th Ave 47798 48 16.0 0.92 0.74 12.9 0.18 3.1

85 Walnut St 38th St 11793 12 4.0 0.93 1.48 6.4 -0.55 -2.4

86 W 38th Ave N Lowell Blvd 10289 29 9.7 2.57 1.58 6.0 0.99 3.7

87 N Downing St Walnut St 7030 4 1.3 0.52 1.91 4.9 -1.39 -3.6

88 W 38th Ave N Irving St 9823 18 6.0 1.67 1.62 5.8 0.05 0.2

89 N Lipan St W 38th Ave 11244 10 3.3 0.81 1.52 6.2 -0.70 -2.9

90 W 38th Ave N Perry St 22534 4 1.3 0.16 1.08 8.8 -0.91 -7.5

91 W 38th Ave N Navajo St 12733 7 2.3 0.50 1.43 6.6 -0.92 -4.3

92 W 38th Ave N Pecos St 22593 30 10.0 1.21 1.07 8.9 0.14 1.1

93 W 38th Ave N Tejon St 9045 13 4.3 1.31 1.69 5.6 -0.38 -1.2

94 W 38th Ave N Zuni St 7143 18 6.0 2.30 1.90 5.0 0.40 1.0

95 W 38th Ave N Fox St 18782 38 12.7 1.85 1.18 8.1 0.67 4.6

96 N Federal Blvd W 38th Ave 42654 68 22.7 1.46 0.78 12.2 0.67 10.5

97 W 38th Ave N Tennyson St 13606 14 4.7 0.94 1.38 6.9 -0.44 -2.2

98 W 38th Ave N Clay St 7967 8 2.7 0.92 1.80 5.2 -0.88 -2.6

99 N Sheridan Blvd W 38th Ave 35668 40 13.3 1.02 0.86 11.1 0.17 2.2

100 N Peoria St E 37th Ave 37269 39 13.0 0.96 0.84 11.4 0.12 1.6

101 N Quebec St E 36th Ave 41037 40 13.3 0.89 0.80 12.0 0.09 1.4

102 Park Ave W Interstate 25 17615 32 10.7 1.66 1.21 7.8 0.44 2.9

103 N Quebec St E 35th Ave 39813 19 6.3 0.44 0.81 11.8 -0.38 -5.5

104 N Colorado Blvd E 35th Ave 47228 23 7.7 0.44 0.75 12.8 -0.30 -5.2

105 Park Ave W N Globeville Rd 38751 38 12.7 0.90 0.82 11.6 0.07 1.0

106 N Federal Blvd W 35th Ave 36297 10 3.3 0.25 0.85 11.2 -0.60 -7.9

107 N Federal Blvd W 33rd Ave 38413 13 4.3 0.31 0.83 11.6 -0.52 -7.2

108

E Martin Luther King

Blvd N Quebec St 18060 71 23.7 3.59 1.20 7.9 2.39 15.8

109 E Martin Luther King N Monaco St 18244 52 17.3 2.60 1.19 7.9 1.41 9.4

242

Est'd

Total Annual Annual Est'd Annual PFI PFI

Inter # Intersection Name AADT (10-12) Crashes Crashes Crash Rate Crash Rate Crashes Crash Rate Crash Freq

Blvd

110 N Colorado Blvd E Martin Luther King Blvd 25038 72 24.0 2.63 1.02 9.3 1.61 14.7

111 W 32nd Ave N Federal Blvd 35237 35 11.7 0.91 0.86 11.1 0.05 0.6

112 W 32nd Ave N Sheridan Blvd 35367 13 4.3 0.34 0.86 11.1 -0.52 -6.8

113 E 31st Ave N York St 24927 45 15.0 1.65 1.02 9.3 0.63 5.7

114 N Federal Blvd N Speer Blvd 26096 32 10.7 1.12 1.00 9.5 0.12 1.1

115 N Broadway Blake St 14190 12 4.0 0.77 1.35 7.0 -0.58 -3.0

116 N Colorado Blvd E 29th Ave 60916 23 7.7 0.34 0.66 14.6 -0.31 -6.9

117 N Lowell Blvd W 29th Ave 10716 15 5.0 1.28 1.55 6.1 -0.27 -1.1

118 N Federal Blvd W 29th Ave 34816 30 10.0 0.79 0.87 11.0 -0.08 -1.0

119 N Speer Blvd W 29th Ave 62197 29 9.7 0.43 0.65 14.8 -0.22 -5.1

120 W 29th Ave N Irving St 7311 5 1.7 0.62 1.88 5.0 -1.25 -3.3

121 N Sheridan Blvd W 29th Ave 36004 15 5.0 0.38 0.85 11.2 -0.47 -6.2

122 15th St Central St 13211 8 2.7 0.55 1.40 6.8 -0.85 -4.1

123 E 28th Ave N York St 2261 2 0.7 0.81 3.36 2.8 -2.55 -2.1

124 Park Ave W Blake St 12429 24 8.0 1.76 1.44 6.5 0.32 1.5

125 N Broadway Larimer St 10834 5 1.7 0.42 1.54 6.1 -1.12 -4.4

126 15th St Platte St 13985 18 6.0 1.18 1.36 6.9 -0.19 -0.9

127 Blake St 22nd St 12179 33 11.0 2.47 1.46 6.5 1.02 4.5

128 N Quebec St E 26th Ave 33372 6 2.0 0.16 0.89 10.8 -0.72 -8.8

129 N Monaco St E 26th Ave 15626 5 1.7 0.29 1.29 7.3 -1.00 -5.7

130 N Colorado Blvd E 26th Ave 57334 22 7.3 0.35 0.68 14.2 -0.33 -6.8

131 22nd St Larimer St 8280 17 5.7 1.88 1.76 5.3 0.11 0.3

132 N Federal Blvd W 26th Ave 34151 33 11.0 0.88 0.88 10.9 0.01 0.1

133 W 26th Ave N Irving St 7673 8 2.7 0.95 1.83 5.1 -0.88 -2.5

134 E 26th Ave N Downing St 28799 11 3.7 0.35 0.95 10.0 -0.60 -6.3

135 N York St E 26th Ave 25543 27 9.0 0.97 1.01 9.4 -0.04 -0.4

136 20th St Blake St 15724 28 9.3 1.63 1.28 7.4 0.34 2.0

243

Est'd

Total Annual Annual Est'd Annual PFI PFI

Inter # Intersection Name AADT (10-12) Crashes Crashes Crash Rate Crash Rate Crashes Crash Rate Crash Freq

137 22nd St Lawrence St 20624 34 11.3 1.51 1.12 8.5 0.38 2.9

138 20th St Market St 40174 27 9.0 0.61 0.81 11.8 -0.19 -2.8

139 22nd St Arapahoe St 18224 29 9.7 1.45 1.19 7.9 0.26 1.7

140 19th St Blake St 11182 8 2.7 0.65 1.52 6.2 -0.87 -3.5

141 22nd St N Broadway 19227 49 16.3 2.33 1.16 8.2 1.16 8.2

142 18th St Blake St 45550 27 9.0 0.54 0.76 12.6 -0.22 -3.6

143 N Speer Blvd Elitch Cir 59801 11 3.7 0.17 0.66 14.5 -0.50 -10.8

144 20th St Lawrence St 14190 48 16.0 3.09 1.35 7.0 1.74 9.0

145 Market St 18th St 23771 22 7.3 0.85 1.05 9.1 -0.20 -1.8

146 N Broadway Champa St 7181 26 8.7 3.31 1.89 5.0 1.41 3.7

147 N Quebec St E 23rd Ave 3150 25 8.3 7.25 2.85 3.3 4.40 5.1

148 N Colorado Blvd E 23rd Ave 5732 47 15.7 7.49 2.12 4.4 5.37 11.2

149 19th St Curtis St 7789 13 4.3 1.52 1.82 5.2 -0.29 -0.8

150 Park Ave W Tremont Pl 2150 6 2.0 2.55 3.44 2.7 -0.89 -0.7

151 Arapahoe St 18th St 16900 5 1.7 0.27 1.24 7.6 -0.97 -6.0

152 N Speer Blvd Blake St 27990 29 9.7 0.95 0.97 9.9 -0.02 -0.2

153 20th St Welton St 31339 25 8.3 0.73 0.91 10.4 -0.18 -2.1

154 E Montview Blvd N Quebec St 11804 44 14.7 3.40 1.48 6.4 1.92 8.3

155 N Speer Blvd Auraria Pkwy 52621 51 17.0 0.89 0.71 13.6 0.18 3.4

156 N Colorado Blvd E Montview Blvd 10352 42 14.0 3.71 1.58 6.0 2.13 8.0

157 N Broadway Welton St 29816 32 10.7 0.98 0.94 10.2 0.04 0.5

158 Park Ave E 19th Ave 17698 7 2.3 0.36 1.21 7.8 -0.85 -5.5

159 N Lincoln St E 19th Ave 18627 21 7.0 1.03 1.18 8.0 -0.15 -1.0

160 N Broadway E 19th Ave 28090 23 7.7 0.75 0.96 9.9 -0.22 -2.2

161 15th St Champa St 16986 34 11.3 1.83 1.24 7.7 0.59 3.7

162 17th St Welton St 14959 36 12.0 2.20 1.32 7.2 0.88 4.8

163 California St 16th St 4649 3 1.0 0.59 2.35 4.0 -1.76 -3.0

164 E 18th Ave N Franklin St 956 24 8.0 22.93 5.14 1.8 17.79 6.2

244

Est'd

Total Annual Annual Est'd Annual PFI PFI

Inter # Intersection Name AADT (10-12) Crashes Crashes Crash Rate Crash Rate Crashes Crash Rate Crash Freq

165 N Clarkson St E 18th Ave 16990 17 5.7 0.91 1.24 7.7 -0.32 -2.0

166 15th St Stout St 11730 23 7.7 1.79 1.49 6.4 0.31 1.3

167 N Yosemite St E 17th Ave 1487 8 2.7 4.91 4.13 2.2 0.78 0.4

168 N Monaco St E 17th Ave 14690 14 4.7 0.87 1.33 7.1 -0.46 -2.5

169 Tremont Pl 17th St 16816 19 6.3 1.03 1.24 7.6 -0.21 -1.3

170 N Colorado Blvd E 17th Ave 38405 87 29.0 2.07 0.83 11.6 1.24 17.4

171 N Federal Blvd W 17th Ave 36510 25 8.3 0.63 0.85 11.3 -0.22 -2.9

172 N Sheridan Blvd W 17th Ave 38151 27 9.0 0.65 0.83 11.5 -0.18 -2.5

173 Welton St 15th St 7600 26 8.7 3.12 1.84 5.1 1.28 3.6

174 N Broadway E 17th Ave 24856 47 15.7 1.73 1.02 9.3 0.70 6.4

175 E 17th Ave N Downing St 4477 12 4.0 2.45 2.39 3.9 0.06 0.1

176 Park Ave E 17th Ave 10985 18 6.0 1.50 1.53 6.2 -0.04 -0.2

177 N Lincoln St E 17th Ave 11812 30 10.0 2.32 1.48 6.4 0.84 3.6

178 15th St Tremont Pl 13556 22 7.3 1.48 1.38 6.8 0.10 0.5

179 Glenarm Pl 14th St 2771 9 3.0 2.97 3.03 3.1 -0.07 -0.1

180 E 16th Ave N York St 11856 18 6.0 1.39 1.48 6.4 -0.09 -0.4

181 E Colfax Ave N Quebec St 31368 61 20.3 1.78 0.91 10.4 0.86 9.9

182 E Colfax Ave N Monaco St 29468 72 24.0 2.23 0.94 10.1 1.29 13.9

183 N Colorado Blvd E Colfax Ave 50910 109 36.3 1.96 0.72 13.3 1.24 23.0

184 E Colfax Ave N Elizabeth St 15816 14 4.7 0.81 1.28 7.4 -0.47 -2.7

185 W Colfax Ave N Irving St 34588 23 7.7 0.61 0.87 11.0 -0.26 -3.3

186 W Colfax Ave N Kalamath St 10682 137 45.7 11.71 1.56 6.1 10.16 39.6

187 W Colfax Ave Welton St 32820 23 7.7 0.64 0.89 10.7 -0.25 -3.0

188 E Colfax Ave N York St 31244 38 12.7 1.11 0.91 10.4 0.20 2.2

189 N Sheridan Blvd W Colfax Ave 44335 63 21.0 1.30 0.77 12.4 0.53 8.6

190 E Colfax Ave N Washington St 32184 21 7.0 0.60 0.90 10.6 -0.31 -3.6

191 E Colfax Ave N Logan St 6288 41 13.7 5.95 2.02 4.6 3.93 9.0

192 W Colfax Ave 7th St 52078 69 23.0 1.21 0.71 13.5 0.50 9.5

245

Est'd

Total Annual Annual Est'd Annual PFI PFI

Inter # Intersection Name AADT (10-12) Crashes Crashes Crash Rate Crash Rate Crashes Crash Rate Crash Freq

193 W Colfax Ave N Mariposa St 52493 33 11.0 0.57 0.71 13.6 -0.13 -2.6

194 N Quebec St E 14th Ave 19096 31 10.3 1.48 1.17 8.1 0.32 2.2

195 N Monaco St E 14th Ave 14995 17 5.7 1.04 1.32 7.2 -0.28 -1.5

196 E 14th Ave N Josephine St 16634 29 9.7 1.59 1.25 7.6 0.34 2.1

197 E 14th Ave N York St 20624 40 13.3 1.77 1.12 8.5 0.65 4.9

198 N Colorado Blvd E 14th Ave 40345 83 27.7 1.88 0.81 11.9 1.07 15.8

199 N Corona St E 14th Ave 7816 3 1.0 0.35 1.82 5.2 -1.47 -4.2

200 E 14th Ave N Downing St 9643 27 9.0 2.56 1.64 5.8 0.92 3.2

201 E 14th Ave N Pearl St 14731 10 3.3 0.62 1.33 7.1 -0.71 -3.8

202 E 14th Ave N Washington St 9558 13 4.3 1.24 1.64 5.7 -0.40 -1.4

203 E 14th Ave N Logan St 12844 13 4.3 0.92 1.42 6.7 -0.50 -2.3

204 N Grant St E 14th Ave 17969 23 7.7 1.17 1.20 7.9 -0.03 -0.2

205 N Lincoln St E 14th Ave 30688 41 13.7 1.22 0.92 10.3 0.30 3.3

206 N Broadway E 14th Ave 20428 32 10.7 1.43 1.13 8.4 0.30 2.3

207 N Speer Blvd W 14th Ave 61501 66 22.0 0.98 0.65 14.7 0.33 7.3

208 N Sheridan Blvd W 14th Ave 13311 33 11.0 2.26 1.40 6.8 0.87 4.2

209 N Federal Blvd W 14th Ave 41170 48 16.0 1.06 0.80 12.0 0.27 4.0

210 E 13th Ave N Syracuse St 12838 13 4.3 0.92 1.42 6.7 -0.50 -2.3

211 E 13th Ave N Josephine St 16634 27 9.0 1.48 1.25 7.6 0.23 1.4

212 E 13th Ave N Downing St 8055 30 10.0 3.40 1.79 5.3 1.61 4.7

213 E 13th Ave N Washington St 9558 12 4.0 1.15 1.64 5.7 -0.50 -1.7

214 N Colorado Blvd E 13th Ave 12556 50 16.7 3.64 1.44 6.6 2.20 10.1

215 N Logan St E 13th Ave 10385 25 8.3 2.20 1.58 6.0 0.62 2.4

216 E 13th Ave N Grant St 28379 27 9.0 0.87 0.96 9.9 -0.09 -0.9

217 N Lincoln St E 13th Ave 25399 42 14.0 1.51 1.01 9.4 0.50 4.6

218 N Colorado Blvd E 12th Ave 22144 10 3.3 0.41 1.08 8.8 -0.67 -5.4

219 N Lincoln St E 12th Ave 56525 25 8.3 0.40 0.68 14.1 -0.28 -5.7

220 N Federal Blvd W 10th Ave 35303 42 14.0 1.09 0.86 11.1 0.23 2.9

246

Est'd

Total Annual Annual Est'd Annual PFI PFI

Inter # Intersection Name AADT (10-12) Crashes Crashes Crash Rate Crash Rate Crashes Crash Rate Crash Freq

221 W 10th Ave N Knox Ct 4265 11 3.7 2.36 2.45 3.8 -0.10 -0.1

222 E 9th Ave N Downing St 10058 6 2.0 0.54 1.60 5.9 -1.06 -3.9

223 N Speer Blvd N Bannock St 43765 34 11.3 0.71 0.77 12.4 -0.06 -1.0

224 N Quebec St E 8th Ave 2538 14 4.7 5.04 3.17 2.9 1.87 1.7

225 N Monaco St E 8th Ave 9777 39 13.0 3.64 1.63 5.8 2.02 7.2

226 N Colorado Blvd E 8th Ave 29242 66 22.0 2.06 0.94 10.1 1.12 11.9

227 E 8th Ave N Corona St 7953 10 3.3 1.15 1.80 5.2 -0.65 -1.9

228 E 8th Ave N Clarkson St 14418 12 4.0 0.76 1.34 7.1 -0.58 -3.1

229 W 8th Ave N Broadway 35259 66 22.0 1.71 0.86 11.1 0.85 10.9

230 W 7th Ave N Santa Fe Dr 16175 17 5.7 0.96 1.27 7.5 -0.31 -1.8

231 N Kalamath St W 7th Ave 36984 45 15.0 1.11 0.84 11.4 0.27 3.6

232 E 6th Ave N Monaco St 18109 18 6.0 0.91 1.20 7.9 -0.29 -1.9

233 E 6th Ave N Colorado Blvd 31832 100 33.3 2.87 0.91 10.5 1.96 22.8

234 E 6th Ave N Lincoln St 33572 112 37.3 3.05 0.88 10.8 2.16 26.5

235 W 6th Ave N Broadway 35259 70 23.3 1.81 0.86 11.1 0.95 12.2

236 E 6th Ave N Corona St 7953 20 6.7 2.30 1.80 5.2 0.50 1.4

237 N Colorado Blvd E 3rd Ave 32319 88 29.3 2.49 0.90 10.6 1.59 18.7

238 N Broadway W 3rd Ave 35750 32 10.7 0.82 0.86 11.2 -0.04 -0.5

239 E Speer Blvd N Corona St 28524 27 9.0 0.86 0.96 10.0 -0.09 -1.0

240 N Broadway W 1st Ave 35750 22 7.3 0.56 0.86 11.2 -0.29 -3.8

241 N University Blvd E 1st Ave 44343 93 31.0 1.92 0.77 12.4 1.15 18.6

242 E 1st Ave N Saint Paul St 27335 30 10.0 1.00 0.98 9.7 0.03 0.3

243 N Colorado Blvd E 1st Ave 32319 92 30.7 2.60 0.90 10.6 1.70 20.1

244 N Federal Blvd W 1st Ave 41615 13 4.3 0.29 0.79 12.1 -0.51 -7.7

245 N Sheridan Blvd W 1st Ave 50577 27 9.0 0.49 0.72 13.3 -0.23 -4.3

246 E 1st Ave N Steele St 41960 33 11.0 0.72 0.79 12.1 -0.07 -1.1

247 S Steele St E Bayaud Ave 8229 40 13.3 4.44 1.77 5.3 2.67 8.0

248 S Colorado Blvd E Alameda Ave 21762 90 30.0 3.78 1.09 8.7 2.68 21.3

247

Est'd

Total Annual Annual Est'd Annual PFI PFI

Inter # Intersection Name AADT (10-12) Crashes Crashes Crash Rate Crash Rate Crashes Crash Rate Crash Freq

249 E Alameda Ave E Fairmount Dr 38659 39 13.0 0.92 0.82 11.6 0.10 1.4

250 E Alameda Ave S Quebec St 38522 87 29.0 2.06 0.82 11.6 1.24 17.4

251 E Alameda Ave S Havana St 39032 11 3.7 0.26 0.82 11.7 -0.56 -8.0

252 E Alameda Ave Leetsdale Dr 1524 76 25.3 45.54 4.08 2.3 41.46 23.1

253 E Alameda Ave S Monaco St 36191 105 35.0 2.65 0.85 11.2 1.80 23.8

254 S University Blvd E Alameda Ave 40835 59 19.7 1.32 0.80 11.9 0.52 7.7

255 E Alameda Ave S Downing St 17938 20 6.7 1.02 1.20 7.9 -0.19 -1.2

256 E Alameda Ave S Lincoln St 28055 29 9.7 0.94 0.96 9.9 -0.02 -0.2

257 W Alameda Ave S Kalamath St 23034 76 25.3 3.01 1.06 8.9 1.95 16.4

258 S Broadway W Alameda Ave 34563 54 18.0 1.43 0.87 11.0 0.56 7.0

259 E Alameda Ave S Washington St 8062 29 9.7 3.29 1.79 5.3 1.50 4.4

260 W Alameda Ave S Platte River Dr 11223 24 8.0 1.95 1.52 6.2 0.43 1.8

261 W Alameda Ave S Sheridan Blvd 14353 37 12.3 2.35 1.34 7.0 1.01 5.3

262 W Alameda Ave S Yuma St 15930 23 7.7 1.32 1.28 7.4 0.04 0.2

263 W Alameda Ave S Perry St 18321 24 8.0 1.20 1.19 8.0 0.01 0.0

264 W Alameda Ave S Knox Ct 17243 42 14.0 2.22 1.23 7.7 1.00 6.3

265 S Federal Blvd W Alameda Ave 39080 101 33.7 2.36 0.82 11.7 1.54 22.0

266 Leetsdale Dr S Holly St 13162 57 19.0 3.95 1.40 6.7 2.55 12.3

267 S Colorado Blvd E Cherry Creek North Dr 18406 68 22.7 3.37 1.19 8.0 2.19 14.7

268 S Federal Blvd W Virginia Ave 12112 24 8.0 1.81 1.46 6.5 0.35 1.5

269 S Monaco St Leetsdale Dr 43168 154 51.3 3.26 0.78 12.3 2.48 39.1

270 S Colorado Blvd E Ohio Ave 13495 16 5.3 1.08 1.39 6.8 -0.30 -1.5

271 S Broadway E Ohio Ave 10923 41 13.7 3.43 1.54 6.1 1.89 7.5

272 S Broadway E Ohio Ave 29901 39 13.0 1.19 0.93 10.2 0.26 2.8

273 Leetsdale Dr S Oneida St 2667 46 15.3 15.75 3.09 3.0 12.66 12.3

274 S Federal Blvd W Kentucky Ave 18273 28 9.3 1.40 1.19 8.0 0.21 1.4

275 S Broadway W Kentucky Ave 11292 46 15.3 3.72 1.51 6.2 2.21 9.1

276 Morrison Rd W Kentucky Ave 10923 28 9.3 2.34 1.54 6.1 0.80 3.2

248

Est'd

Total Annual Annual Est'd Annual PFI PFI

Inter # Intersection Name AADT (10-12) Crashes Crashes Crash Rate Crash Rate Crashes Crash Rate Crash Freq

277 Leetsdale Dr S Quebec St 26385 146 48.7 5.05 0.99 9.6 4.06 39.1

278 E Mississippi Ave S Parker Rd 20945 46 15.3 2.01 1.11 8.5 0.89 6.8

279 E Mississippi Ave S Colorado Blvd 36166 53 17.7 1.34 0.85 11.2 0.49 6.4

280 S Santa Fe Dr W Mississippi Ave 19284 77 25.7 3.65 1.16 8.2 2.49 17.5

281 W Mississippi Ave S Platte River Dr 42949 106 35.3 2.25 0.78 12.2 1.47 23.1

282 S Broadway W Mississippi Ave 7443 32 10.7 3.93 1.86 5.1 2.07 5.6

283 S Federal Blvd W Mississippi Ave 28600 67 22.3 2.14 0.96 10.0 1.18 12.4

284 S Colorado Blvd E Louisiana Ave 42455 89 29.7 1.91 0.79 12.2 1.13 17.5

285 S Colorado Blvd E Arkansas Ave 17283 58 19.3 3.06 1.23 7.7 1.84 11.6

286 E Florida Ave S Holly St 11147 14 4.7 1.15 1.52 6.2 -0.38 -1.5

287 S Santa Fe Dr W Florida Ave 18273 46 15.3 2.30 1.19 8.0 1.11 7.4

288 S Federal Blvd W Florida Ave 38495 65 21.7 1.54 0.82 11.6 0.72 10.1

289 W Florida Ave S Irving St 16274 36 12.0 2.02 1.26 7.5 0.76 4.5

290 S Colorado Blvd E Iowa Ave 18272 59 19.7 2.95 1.19 8.0 1.76 11.7

291 S Santa Fe Dr W Iowa Ave 51292 36 12.0 0.64 0.72 13.4 -0.07 -1.4

292 S Colorado Blvd E Mexico Ave 65915 69 23.0 0.96 0.63 15.2 0.32 7.8

293 S Federal Blvd W Jewell Ave 28763 62 20.7 1.97 0.95 10.0 1.02 10.7

294 S Sheridan Blvd W Jewell Ave 14940 54 18.0 3.30 1.32 7.2 1.98 10.8

295 W Evans Ave S Sheridan Blvd 10398 55 18.3 4.83 1.58 6.0 3.25 12.3

296 S Colorado Blvd E Evans Ave 27434 86 28.7 2.86 0.98 9.8 1.89 18.9

297 E Evans Ave S Downing St 34651 32 10.7 0.84 0.87 11.0 -0.03 -0.3

298 E Evans Ave S High St 4950 15 5.0 2.77 2.28 4.1 0.49 0.9

299 S University Blvd E Evans Ave 25836 99 33.0 3.50 1.00 9.5 2.49 23.5

300 S Broadway E Evans Ave 29596 68 22.7 2.10 0.94 10.1 1.16 12.5

301 E Evans Ave S Quebec St 13237 36 12.0 2.48 1.40 6.8 1.08 5.2

302 S Colorado Blvd E Yale Ave 23218 38 12.7 1.49 1.06 9.0 0.44 3.7

303 E Hampden Ave S Dayton St 56000 39 13.0 0.64 0.68 14.0 -0.05 -1.0

304 E Hampden Ave S Yosemite St 37922 53 17.7 1.28 0.83 11.5 0.45 6.2

249

Est'd

Total Annual Annual Est'd Annual PFI PFI

Inter # Intersection Name AADT (10-12) Crashes Crashes Crash Rate Crash Rate Crashes Crash Rate Crash Freq

305 E Hampden Ave S Tamarac Dr 13153 73 24.3 5.07 1.40 6.7 3.67 17.6

306 E Hampden Ave S Monaco St 10662 51 17.0 4.37 1.56 6.1 2.81 10.9

307 E Hampden Ave S Locust St 32415 60 20.0 1.69 0.90 10.6 0.79 9.4

308 W 8th Ave N Speer Blvd 31832 90 30.0 2.58 0.91 10.5 1.68 19.5

309 N Kalamath St W 6th Ave 32984 35 11.7 0.97 0.89 10.7 0.08 0.9

1.84

6971939 10062 1.32

Note: Intersections highlighted in yellow are referred to current RLC locations

250

Table 65 Denver intersections ranked based on potential for improvement in relation to crash rate.

PFI

Rank Intersection Name Crash Rate Weighted

1 E Alameda Ave Leetsdale Dr 41.46 0.350

2 E 18th Ave N Franklin St 17.79 0.150

3 Leetsdale Dr S Oneida St 12.66 0.107

4 W Colfax Ave N Kalamath St 10.16 0.086

5 N Colorado Blvd E 23rd Ave 5.37 0.045

6 N Quebec St E 23rd Ave 4.4 0.037

7 Leetsdale Dr S Quebec St 4.06 0.034

8 E Colfax Ave N Logan St 3.93 0.033

9 E Hampden Ave S Tamarac Dr 3.67 0.031

10 W Evans Ave S Sheridan Blvd 3.25 0.027

11 E Hampden Ave S Monaco St 2.81 0.024

12 S Colorado Blvd E Alameda Ave 2.68 0.023

13 S Steele St E Bayaud Ave 2.67 0.023

14 Leetsdale Dr S Holly St 2.55 0.022

15 N University Blvd E Evans Ave 2.49 0.021

16 S Santa Fe Dr W Mississippi Ave 2.49 0.021

17 S Monaco St Leetsdale Dr 2.48 0.021

18 E Martin Luther King Blvd N Quebec St 2.39 0.020

19 S Broadway W Kentucky Ave 2.21 0.019

20 N Colorado Blvd E 13th Ave 2.2 0.019

21 S Colorado Blvd E Cherry Creek North Dr 2.19 0.018

22 E 6th Ave N Lincoln St 2.16 0.018

23 N Quebec St E Smith Rd 2.14 0.018

24 N Colorado Blvd E Montview Blvd 2.13 0.018

25 S Broadway W Mississippi Ave 2.07 0.017

26 N Monaco St E 8th Ave 2.02 0.017

27 S Sheridan Blvd W Jewell Ave 1.98 0.017

28 E 6th Ave N Colorado Blvd 1.96 0.017

29 W Alameda Ave S Kalamath St 1.95 0.016

30 E Montview Blvd N Quebec St 1.92 0.016

31 S Colorado Blvd E Evans Ave 1.89 0.016

32 S Broadway E Ohio Ave 1.89 0.016

33 E Smith Rd N Monaco St 1.89 0.016

34 N Quebec St E 8th Ave 1.87 0.016

35 S Colorado Blvd E Arkansas Ave 1.84 0.016

36 E Alameda Ave S Monaco St 1.8 0.015

37 S Colorado Blvd E Iowa Ave 1.76 0.015

251

PFI

Rank Intersection Name Crash Rate Weighted

38 20th St Lawrence St 1.74 0.015

39 N Colorado Blvd E 1st Ave 1.7 0.014

40 W 8th Ave N Speer Blvd 1.68 0.014

41 N Colorado Blvd E Martin Luther King Blvd 1.61 0.014

42 E 13th Ave N Downing St 1.61 0.014

43 N Colorado Blvd E 3rd Ave 1.59 0.013

44 S Federal Blvd W Alameda Ave 1.54 0.013

45 E Alameda Ave S Washington St 1.5 0.013

46 W Mississippi Ave S Platte River Dr 1.47 0.012

47 E Martin Luther King Blvd N Monaco St 1.41 0.012

48 N Broadway Champa St 1.41 0.012

49 E Colfax Ave N Monaco St 1.29 0.011

50 Welton St 15th St 1.28 0.011

51 N Colorado Blvd E Colfax Ave 1.24 0.010

52 N Colorado Blvd E 17th Ave 1.24 0.010

53 E Alameda Ave S Quebec St 1.24 0.010

54 N Peoria St E 47th Ave 1.2 0.010

55 S Federal Blvd W Mississippi Ave 1.18 0.010

56 S Broadway E Evans Ave 1.16 0.010

57 22nd St N Broadway 1.16 0.010

58 S University Blvd E 1st Ave 1.15 0.010

59 S Colorado Blvd E Louisiana Ave 1.13 0.010

60 N Colorado Blvd E 8th Ave 1.12 0.009

61 S Santa Fe Dr W Florida Ave 1.11 0.009

62 E Evans Ave S Quebec St 1.08 0.009

63 N Colorado Blvd E 14th Ave 1.07 0.009

64 S Federal Blvd W Jewell Ave 1.02 0.009

65 Blake St 22nd St 1.02 0.009

66 W Alameda Ave S Sheridan Blvd 1.01 0.009

67 E 46th Ave N Steele St 1.01 0.009

68 W Alameda Ave S Knox Ct 1 0.008

69 W 38th Ave N Lowell Blvd 0.99 0.008

70 W 6th Ave N Broadway 0.95 0.008

71 E 14th Ave N Downing St 0.92 0.008

72 E Mississippi Ave S Parker Rd 0.89 0.008

73 17th St Welton St 0.88 0.007

74 N Sheridan Blvd W 14th Ave 0.87 0.007

75 N Havana St E 47th Ave 0.87 0.007

76 E Colfax Ave N Quebec St 0.86 0.007

252

PFI

Rank Intersection Name Crash Rate Weighted

77 W 8th Ave N Broadway 0.85 0.007

78 N Lincoln St E 17th Ave 0.84 0.007

79 N Tower Rd E 56th Ave 0.83 0.007

80 Morrison Rd W Kentucky Ave 0.8 0.007

81 E Hampden Ave S Locust St 0.79 0.007

82 N Yosemite St E 17th Ave 0.78 0.007

83 W Florida Ave S Irving St 0.76 0.006

84 S Federal Blvd W Florida Ave 0.72 0.006

85 E 51st Ave N Peoria St 0.72 0.006

86 N Broadway E 17th Ave 0.7 0.006

87 N Federal Blvd W 38th Ave 0.67 0.006

88 W 38th Ave N Fox St 0.67 0.006

89 N Dahlia St E Stapleton South Dr 0.66 0.006

90 N Monaco St E Stapleton South Dr 0.65 0.005

91 E 14th Ave N York St 0.65 0.005

92 N Dahlia St E Stapleton North Dr 0.65 0.005

93 N Quebec St N Sand Creek Rd 0.63 0.005

94 E 31st Ave N York St 0.63 0.005

95 N Logan St E 13th Ave 0.62 0.005

96 N Brighton Blvd 38th St 0.61 0.005

97 15th St Champa St 0.59 0.005

98 S Broadway W Alameda Ave 0.56 0.005

99 N Sheridan Blvd W Colfax Ave 0.53 0.004

100 S University Blvd E Alameda Ave 0.52 0.004

101 W Colfax Ave 7th St 0.5 0.004

102 N Lincoln St E 13th Ave 0.5 0.004

103 E 6th Ave N Corona St 0.5 0.004

104 E Mississippi Ave S Colorado Blvd 0.49 0.004

105 E Evans Ave S High St 0.49 0.004

106 E Hampden Ave S Yosemite St 0.45 0.004

107 S Colorado Blvd E Yale Ave 0.44 0.004

108 Park Ave W Interstate 25 0.44 0.004

109 W Alameda Ave S Platte River Dr 0.43 0.004

110 E 46th Ave N York St 0.41 0.003

111 W 38th Ave N Zuni St 0.4 0.003

112 22nd St Lawrence St 0.38 0.003

113 N Quebec St Interstate 70 0.37 0.003

114 E 46th Ave N Josephine St 0.37 0.003

115 W 46th Ave N Pecos St 0.36 0.003

253

PFI

Rank Intersection Name Crash Rate Weighted

116 S Federal Blvd W Virginia Ave 0.35 0.003

117 E 14th Ave N Josephine St 0.34 0.003

118 20th St Blake St 0.34 0.003

119 N Speer Blvd W 14th Ave 0.33 0.003

120 S Colorado Blvd E Mexico Ave 0.32 0.003

121 N Quebec St E 14th Ave 0.32 0.003

122 Park Ave W Blake St 0.32 0.003

123 N Washington St E 45th Ave 0.31 0.003

124 15th St Stout St 0.31 0.003

125 N Lincoln St E 14th Ave 0.3 0.003

126 N Broadway E 14th Ave 0.3 0.003

127 N Federal Blvd W 14th Ave 0.27 0.002

128 N Kalamath St W 7th Ave 0.27 0.002

129 S Broadway E Ohio Ave 0.26 0.002

130 22nd St Arapahoe St 0.26 0.002

131 N Federal Blvd W 10th Ave 0.23 0.002

132 E 13th Ave N Josephine St 0.23 0.002

133 E 56th Ave N Havana St 0.23 0.002

134 N Quebec St Interstate 70 0.21 0.002

135 S Federal Blvd W Kentucky Ave 0.21 0.002

136 E Colfax Ave N York St 0.2 0.002

137 N Colorado Blvd E 40th Ave 0.19 0.002

138 N Speer Blvd Auraria Pkwy 0.18 0.002

139 N Peoria St E 39th Ave 0.18 0.002

140 N Chambers Rd E 46th Ave 0.18 0.002

141 N Sheridan Blvd W 38th Ave 0.17 0.001

142 E 40th Ave N York St 0.16 0.001

143 W 46th Ave N Lowell Blvd 0.15 0.001

144 E 40th Ave N Chambers Rd 0.14 0.001

145 W 38th Ave N Pecos St 0.14 0.001

146 N Peoria St E 37th Ave 0.12 0.001

147 N Federal Blvd N Speer Blvd 0.12 0.001

148 22nd St Larimer St 0.11 0.001

149 E Alameda Ave E Fairmount Dr 0.1 0.001

150 W 50th Ave N Federal Blvd 0.1 0.001

151 15th St Tremont Pl 0.1 0.001

152 N Quebec St E 36th Ave 0.09 0.001

153 N Kalamath St W 6th Ave 0.08 0.001

154 Park Ave W N Globeville Rd 0.07 0.001

254

PFI

Rank Intersection Name Crash Rate Weighted

155 N Washington St E 46th Ave 0.07 0.001

156 E 17th Ave N Downing St 0.06 0.001

157 W 32nd Ave N Federal Blvd 0.05 0.000

158 W 38th Ave N Irving St 0.05 0.000

159 N Broadway Welton St 0.04 0.000

160 W Alameda Ave S Yuma St 0.04 0.000

161 E 1st Ave N Saint Paul St 0.03 0.000

162 N Federal Blvd W 26th Ave 0.01 0.000

163 W Alameda Ave S Perry St 0.01 0.000

164 N Speer Blvd Blake St -0.02 0.000

165 E Alameda Ave S Lincoln St -0.02 0.000

166 N Grant St E 14th Ave -0.03 0.000

167 E Evans Ave S Downing St -0.03 0.000

168 Park Ave E 17th Ave -0.04 0.000

169 N York St E 26th Ave -0.04 0.000

170 N Broadway W 3rd Ave -0.04 0.000

171 N Peoria St E Andrews Dr -0.05 0.000

172 E Hampden Ave S Dayton St -0.05 0.000

173 N Speer Blvd N Bannock St -0.06 -0.001

174 Glenarm Pl 14th St -0.07 -0.001

175 E 1st Ave N Steele St -0.07 -0.001

176 S Santa Fe Dr W Iowa Ave -0.07 -0.001

177 N Holly St E Stapleton North Dr -0.08 -0.001

178 N Federal Blvd W 29th Ave -0.08 -0.001

179 E 16th Ave N York St -0.09 -0.001

180 E 13th Ave N Grant St -0.09 -0.001

181 E Speer Blvd N Corona St -0.09 -0.001

182 N Federal Blvd W 44th Ave -0.09 -0.001

183 W 10th Ave N Knox Ct -0.1 -0.001

184 N Peoria St E 45th Ave -0.1 -0.001

185 N Quebec St E 53rd Pl -0.13 -0.001

186 W Colfax Ave N Mariposa St -0.13 -0.001

187 N Lincoln St E 19th Ave -0.15 -0.001

188 20th St Welton St -0.18 -0.002

189 N Sheridan Blvd W 17th Ave -0.18 -0.002

190 E 46th Ave N Clayton St -0.19 -0.002

191 15th St Platte St -0.19 -0.002

192 E Alameda Ave S Downing St -0.19 -0.002

193 20th St Market St -0.19 -0.002

255

PFI

Rank Intersection Name Crash Rate Weighted

194 Market St 18th St -0.2 -0.002

195 E Stapleton North Dr N Monaco St -0.21 -0.002

196 Tremont Pl 17th St -0.21 -0.002

197 N Broadway E 19th Ave -0.22 -0.002

198 N Federal Blvd W 17th Ave -0.22 -0.002

199 18th St Blake St -0.22 -0.002

200 N Speer Blvd W 29th Ave -0.22 -0.002

201 N Sheridan Blvd W 1st Ave -0.23 -0.002

202 W Colfax Ave Welton St -0.25 -0.002

203 N Havana St E 40th Ave -0.26 -0.002

204 W Colfax Ave N Irving St -0.26 -0.002

205 N Lowell Blvd W 29th Ave -0.27 -0.002

206 E 56th Ave Pena Blvd -0.28 -0.002

207 N Monaco St E 14th Ave -0.28 -0.002

208 N Sheridan Blvd W 48th Ave -0.28 -0.002

209 N Lincoln St E 12th Ave -0.28 -0.002

210 19th St Curtis St -0.29 -0.002

211 E 6th Ave N Monaco St -0.29 -0.002

212 N Federal Blvd W 46th Ave -0.29 -0.002

213 N Broadway W 1st Ave -0.29 -0.002

214 S Colorado Blvd E Ohio Ave -0.3 -0.003

215 N Colorado Blvd E 35th Ave -0.3 -0.003

216 W 7th Ave N Santa Fe Dr -0.31 -0.003

217 E Colfax Ave N Washington St -0.31 -0.003

218 N Colorado Blvd E 29th Ave -0.31 -0.003

219 N Clarkson St E 18th Ave -0.32 -0.003

220 N Sheridan Blvd W 44th Ave -0.32 -0.003

221 N Colorado Blvd E 26th Ave -0.33 -0.003

222 N Peoria St Interstate 70 -0.33 -0.003

223 N Federal Blvd W 52nd Ave -0.37 -0.003

224 W 38th Ave N Tejon St -0.38 -0.003

225 E Florida Ave S Holly St -0.38 -0.003

226 N Quebec St E 35th Ave -0.38 -0.003

227 N Washington St Interstate 70 -0.39 -0.003

228 E 14th Ave N Washington St -0.4 -0.003

229 W 48th Ave N Pecos St -0.41 -0.003

230 N Colorado Blvd E 48th Ave -0.41 -0.003

231 N Vasquez Blvd E 48th Ave -0.43 -0.004

232 N Tower Rd Pena Blvd -0.43 -0.004

256

PFI

Rank Intersection Name Crash Rate Weighted

233 W 38th Ave N Tennyson St -0.44 -0.004

234 Green Valley Ranch Blvd N Himalaya Rd -0.44 -0.004

235 N Monaco St E 17th Ave -0.46 -0.004

236 E Colfax Ave N Elizabeth St -0.47 -0.004

237 N Sheridan Blvd W 29th Ave -0.47 -0.004

238 E 13th Ave N Washington St -0.5 -0.004

239 N Tennyson St W 44th Ave -0.5 -0.004

240 E 14th Ave N Logan St -0.5 -0.004

241 E 13th Ave N Syracuse St -0.5 -0.004

242 N Havana St Interstate 70 -0.5 -0.004

243 N Speer Blvd Elitch Cir -0.5 -0.004

244 N Federal Blvd W 1st Ave -0.51 -0.004

245 N Havana St E 51st Ave -0.52 -0.004

246 N Steele St E 45th Ave -0.52 -0.004

247 W 32nd Ave N Sheridan Blvd -0.52 -0.004

248 N Federal Blvd W 33rd Ave -0.52 -0.004

249 N Sheridan Blvd W 52nd Ave -0.53 -0.004

250 N Peoria St Interstate 70 -0.53 -0.004

251 E Stapleton South Dr N Holly St -0.54 -0.005

252 Walnut St 38th St -0.55 -0.005

253 E Alameda Ave S Havana St -0.56 -0.005

254 N Broadway Blake St -0.58 -0.005

255 W 50th Ave N Lowell Blvd -0.58 -0.005

256 E 8th Ave N Clarkson St -0.58 -0.005

257 N Federal Blvd Interstate 70 -0.58 -0.005

258 E 56th Ave N Quebec St -0.59 -0.005

259 E 26th Ave N Downing St -0.6 -0.005

260 N Federal Blvd W 35th Ave -0.6 -0.005

261 N Vasquez Blvd E 52nd Ave -0.64 -0.005

262 E 8th Ave N Corona St -0.65 -0.005

263 N Steele St E 40th Ave -0.65 -0.005

264 N Colorado Blvd Interstate 70 -0.65 -0.005

265 N Federal Blvd W 41st Ave -0.66 -0.006

266 N Tower Rd E 43rd Ave -0.67 -0.006

267 N Colorado Blvd E 12th Ave -0.67 -0.006

268 W 44th Ave N Lowell Blvd -0.7 -0.006

269 N Lipan St W 38th Ave -0.7 -0.006

270 N Sheridan Blvd W 46th Ave -0.7 -0.006

271 E 14th Ave N Pearl St -0.71 -0.006

257

PFI

Rank Intersection Name Crash Rate Weighted

272 38th St Arkins Ct -0.72 -0.006

273 N Quebec St E 26th Ave -0.72 -0.006

274 N Colorado Blvd Interstate 70 -0.77 -0.007

275 N Washington St Interstate 70 -0.77 -0.007

276 N Sheridan Blvd W 41st Ave -0.78 -0.007

277 W 44th Ave N Irving St -0.83 -0.007

278 15th St Central St -0.85 -0.007

279 Park Ave E 19th Ave -0.85 -0.007

280 19th St Blake St -0.87 -0.007

281 W 26th Ave N Irving St -0.88 -0.007

282 W 38th Ave N Clay St -0.88 -0.007

283 Park Ave W Tremont Pl -0.89 -0.008

284 W 38th Ave N Perry St -0.91 -0.008

285 W 38th Ave N Navajo St -0.92 -0.008

286 N Pecos St Interstate 70 -0.93 -0.008

287 N Vasquez Blvd N Steele St -0.94 -0.008

288 W 46th Ave N Zuni St -0.96 -0.008

289 N Washington St E 50th Ave -0.97 -0.008

290 Arapahoe St 18th St -0.97 -0.008

291 N Havana St E 45th Ave -1 -0.008

292 N Monaco St E 26th Ave -1 -0.008

293 N Pecos St W 42nd Ave -1.04 -0.009

294 E 9th Ave N Downing St -1.06 -0.009

295 N Broadway Larimer St -1.12 -0.009

296 N Washington St E 51st Ave -1.16 -0.010

297 N Tennyson St W 46th Ave -1.2 -0.010

298 W 29th Ave N Irving St -1.25 -0.011

299 N Sheridan Blvd Interstate 70 -1.27 -0.011

300 E 47th Ave N Dallas St -1.29 -0.011

301 E 53rd Ave N Chambers Rd -1.33 -0.011

302 N Downing St Walnut St -1.39 -0.012

303 N Corona St E 14th Ave -1.47 -0.012

304 N Washington St Ringsby Ct -1.52 -0.013

305 W 48th Ave N Zuni St -1.56 -0.013

306 E 56th Ave N Peoria St -1.74 -0.015

307 California St 16th St -1.76 -0.015

308 W 52nd Ave N Pecos St -2.41 -0.020

309 E 28th Ave N York St -2.55 -0.022

Note: Intersections highlighted in yellow are referred to current RLC locations

258

Table 66 Denver intersections ranked based on potential for improvement in relation to crash

frequency.

PFI

Rank Intersection Name Crash Freq Weighted

1 W Colfax Ave N Kalamath St 39.6 0.400

2 S Monaco St Leetsdale Dr 39.1 0.395

3 Leetsdale Dr S Quebec St 39.1 0.395

4 E 6th Ave N Lincoln St 26.5 0.268

5 E Alameda Ave S Monaco St 23.8 0.240

6 N University Blvd E Evans Ave 23.5 0.237

7 E Alameda Ave Leetsdale Dr 23.1 0.233

8 W Mississippi Ave S Platte River Dr 23.1 0.233

9 N Colorado Blvd E Colfax Ave 23 0.232

10 E 6th Ave N Colorado Blvd 22.8 0.230

11 S Federal Blvd W Alameda Ave 22 0.222

12 S Colorado Blvd E Alameda Ave 21.3 0.215

13 N Colorado Blvd E 1st Ave 20.1 0.203

14 W 8th Ave N Speer Blvd 19.5 0.197

15 S Colorado Blvd E Evans Ave 18.9 0.191

16 N Colorado Blvd E 3rd Ave 18.7 0.189

17 S University Blvd E 1st Ave 18.6 0.188

18 E Hampden Ave S Tamarac Dr 17.6 0.178

19 N Peoria St E 47th Ave 17.5 0.177

20 S Santa Fe Dr W Mississippi Ave 17.5 0.177

21 S Colorado Blvd E Louisiana Ave 17.5 0.177

22 N Colorado Blvd E 17th Ave 17.4 0.176

23 E Alameda Ave S Quebec St 17.4 0.176

24 W Alameda Ave S Kalamath St 16.4 0.166

25 E Martin Luther King Blvd N Quebec St 15.8 0.160

26 N Colorado Blvd E 14th Ave 15.8 0.160

27 N Colorado Blvd E Martin Luther King Blvd 14.7 0.148

28 S Colorado Blvd E Cherry Creek North Dr 14.7 0.148

29 E Colfax Ave N Monaco St 13.9 0.140

30 S Broadway E Evans Ave 12.5 0.126

31 S Federal Blvd W Mississippi Ave 12.4 0.125

32 Leetsdale Dr S Holly St 12.3 0.124

33 Leetsdale Dr S Oneida St 12.3 0.124

34 W Evans Ave S Sheridan Blvd 12.3 0.124

35 W 6th Ave N Broadway 12.2 0.123

36 N Colorado Blvd E 8th Ave 11.9 0.120

37 S Colorado Blvd E Iowa Ave 11.7 0.118

259

PFI

Rank Intersection Name Crash Freq Weighted

38 S Colorado Blvd E Arkansas Ave 11.6 0.117

39 N Colorado Blvd E 23rd Ave 11.2 0.113

40 W 8th Ave N Broadway 10.9 0.110

41 E Hampden Ave S Monaco St 10.9 0.110

42 S Sheridan Blvd W Jewell Ave 10.8 0.109

43 S Federal Blvd W Jewell Ave 10.7 0.108

44 N Federal Blvd W 38th Ave 10.5 0.106

45 N Colorado Blvd E 13th Ave 10.1 0.102

46 S Federal Blvd W Florida Ave 10.1 0.102

47 E Colfax Ave N Quebec St 9.9 0.100

48 W Colfax Ave 7th St 9.5 0.096

49 E Martin Luther King Blvd N Monaco St 9.4 0.095

50 E Hampden Ave S Locust St 9.4 0.095

51 N Quebec St E Smith Rd 9.3 0.094

52 S Broadway W Kentucky Ave 9.1 0.092

53 20th St Lawrence St 9 0.091

54 E Colfax Ave N Logan St 9 0.091

55 N Sheridan Blvd W Colfax Ave 8.6 0.087

56 E Montview Blvd N Quebec St 8.3 0.084

57 N Quebec St N Sand Creek Rd 8.2 0.083

58 22nd St N Broadway 8.2 0.083

59 N Colorado Blvd E Montview Blvd 8 0.081

60 S Steele St E Bayaud Ave 8 0.081

61 S Colorado Blvd E Mexico Ave 7.8 0.079

62 S University Blvd E Alameda Ave 7.7 0.078

63 S Broadway E Ohio Ave 7.5 0.076

64 S Santa Fe Dr W Florida Ave 7.4 0.075

65 N Speer Blvd W 14th Ave 7.3 0.074

66 N Monaco St E 8th Ave 7.2 0.073

67 S Broadway W Alameda Ave 7 0.071

68 E Mississippi Ave S Parker Rd 6.8 0.069

69 N Monaco St E Stapleton South Dr 6.7 0.068

70 N Broadway E 17th Ave 6.4 0.065

71 E Mississippi Ave S Colorado Blvd 6.4 0.065

72 W Alameda Ave S Knox Ct 6.3 0.064

73 E 18th Ave N Franklin St 6.2 0.063

74 E Hampden Ave S Yosemite St 6.2 0.063

75 E 31st Ave N York St 5.7 0.058

76 S Broadway W Mississippi Ave 5.6 0.057

260

PFI

Rank Intersection Name Crash Freq Weighted

77 W Alameda Ave S Sheridan Blvd 5.3 0.054

78 E Evans Ave S Quebec St 5.2 0.053

79 E 46th Ave N Steele St 5.1 0.052

80 N Quebec St E 23rd Ave 5.1 0.052

81 N Tower Rd E 56th Ave 4.9 0.049

82 E 14th Ave N York St 4.9 0.049

83 17th St Welton St 4.8 0.048

84 E 13th Ave N Downing St 4.7 0.047

85 W 38th Ave N Fox St 4.6 0.046

86 N Lincoln St E 13th Ave 4.6 0.046

87 Blake St 22nd St 4.5 0.045

88 W Florida Ave S Irving St 4.5 0.045

89 E Alameda Ave S Washington St 4.4 0.044

90 N Sheridan Blvd W 14th Ave 4.2 0.042

91 N Havana St E 47th Ave 4 0.040

92 N Federal Blvd W 14th Ave 4 0.040

93 W 38th Ave N Lowell Blvd 3.7 0.037

94 N Broadway Champa St 3.7 0.037

95 15th St Champa St 3.7 0.037

96 S Colorado Blvd E Yale Ave 3.7 0.037

97 Welton St 15th St 3.6 0.036

98 N Lincoln St E 17th Ave 3.6 0.036

99 N Kalamath St W 7th Ave 3.6 0.036

100 E Smith Rd N Monaco St 3.5 0.035

101 N Colorado Blvd E 40th Ave 3.5 0.035

102 N Brighton Blvd 38th St 3.4 0.034

103 N Speer Blvd Auraria Pkwy 3.4 0.034

104 N Lincoln St E 14th Ave 3.3 0.033

105 N Dahlia St E Stapleton North Dr 3.2 0.032

106 E 14th Ave N Downing St 3.2 0.032

107 Morrison Rd W Kentucky Ave 3.2 0.032

108 N Quebec St Interstate 70 3.1 0.031

109 N Peoria St E 39th Ave 3.1 0.031

110 W 46th Ave N Pecos St 2.9 0.029

111 Park Ave W Interstate 25 2.9 0.029

112 22nd St Lawrence St 2.9 0.029

113 N Federal Blvd W 10th Ave 2.9 0.029

114 S Broadway E Ohio Ave 2.8 0.028

115 N Quebec St Interstate 70 2.6 0.026

261

PFI

Rank Intersection Name Crash Freq Weighted

116 N Logan St E 13th Ave 2.4 0.024

117 N Broadway E 14th Ave 2.3 0.023

118 N Sheridan Blvd W 38th Ave 2.2 0.022

119 E Colfax Ave N York St 2.2 0.022

120 N Quebec St E 14th Ave 2.2 0.022

121 E 14th Ave N Josephine St 2.1 0.021

122 E 51st Ave N Peoria St 2 0.020

123 N Dahlia St E Stapleton South Dr 2 0.020

124 20th St Blake St 2 0.020

125 E 46th Ave N Josephine St 1.8 0.018

126 W Alameda Ave S Platte River Dr 1.8 0.018

127 N Washington St E 45th Ave 1.7 0.017

128 22nd St Arapahoe St 1.7 0.017

129 N Quebec St E 8th Ave 1.7 0.017

130 E 46th Ave N York St 1.6 0.016

131 N Peoria St E 37th Ave 1.6 0.016

132 Park Ave W Blake St 1.5 0.015

133 S Federal Blvd W Virginia Ave 1.5 0.015

134 E 40th Ave N Chambers Rd 1.4 0.014

135 N Quebec St E 36th Ave 1.4 0.014

136 E 13th Ave N Josephine St 1.4 0.014

137 E 6th Ave N Corona St 1.4 0.014

138 E Alameda Ave E Fairmount Dr 1.4 0.014

139 S Federal Blvd W Kentucky Ave 1.4 0.014

140 W 50th Ave N Federal Blvd 1.3 0.013

141 15th St Stout St 1.3 0.013

142 W 38th Ave N Pecos St 1.1 0.011

143 N Federal Blvd N Speer Blvd 1.1 0.011

144 E 40th Ave N York St 1 0.010

145 W 38th Ave N Zuni St 1 0.010

146 Park Ave W N Globeville Rd 1 0.010

147 N Chambers Rd E 46th Ave 0.9 0.009

148 E Evans Ave S High St 0.9 0.009

149 N Kalamath St W 6th Ave 0.9 0.009

150 W 32nd Ave N Federal Blvd 0.6 0.006

151 E 56th Ave N Havana St 0.5 0.005

152 N Broadway Welton St 0.5 0.005

153 15th St Tremont Pl 0.5 0.005

154 N Washington St E 46th Ave 0.4 0.004

262

PFI

Rank Intersection Name Crash Freq Weighted

155 W 46th Ave N Lowell Blvd 0.4 0.004

156 N Yosemite St E 17th Ave 0.4 0.004

157 22nd St Larimer St 0.3 0.003

158 E 1st Ave N Saint Paul St 0.3 0.003

159 W 38th Ave N Irving St 0.2 0.002

160 W Alameda Ave S Yuma St 0.2 0.002

161 N Federal Blvd W 26th Ave 0.1 0.001

162 E 17th Ave N Downing St 0.1 0.001

163 W Alameda Ave S Perry St 0 0.000

164 Glenarm Pl 14th St -0.1 -0.001

165 W 10th Ave N Knox Ct -0.1 -0.001

166 E 46th Ave N Clayton St -0.2 -0.002

167 N Speer Blvd Blake St -0.2 -0.002

168 Park Ave E 17th Ave -0.2 -0.002

169 N Grant St E 14th Ave -0.2 -0.002

170 E Alameda Ave S Lincoln St -0.2 -0.002

171 E Evans Ave S Downing St -0.3 -0.003

172 E Stapleton North Dr N Monaco St -0.4 -0.004

173 N York St E 26th Ave -0.4 -0.004

174 E 16th Ave N York St -0.4 -0.004

175 N Peoria St E Andrews Dr -0.5 -0.005

176 N Broadway W 3rd Ave -0.5 -0.005

177 Park Ave W Tremont Pl -0.7 -0.007

178 N Holly St E Stapleton North Dr -0.8 -0.008

179 19th St Curtis St -0.8 -0.008

180 N Quebec St E 53rd Pl -0.9 -0.009

181 15th St Platte St -0.9 -0.009

182 E 13th Ave N Grant St -0.9 -0.009

183 N Peoria St E 45th Ave -1 -0.010

184 N Federal Blvd W 29th Ave -1 -0.010

185 N Lincoln St E 19th Ave -1 -0.010

186 N Speer Blvd N Bannock St -1 -0.010

187 E Speer Blvd N Corona St -1 -0.010

188 E Hampden Ave S Dayton St -1 -0.010

189 E 56th Ave Pena Blvd -1.1 -0.011

190 E 53rd Ave N Chambers Rd -1.1 -0.011

191 N Federal Blvd W 44th Ave -1.1 -0.011

192 N Lowell Blvd W 29th Ave -1.1 -0.011

193 E 1st Ave N Steele St -1.1 -0.011

263

PFI

Rank Intersection Name Crash Freq Weighted

194 W 38th Ave N Tejon St -1.2 -0.012

195 E Alameda Ave S Downing St -1.2 -0.012

196 E 56th Ave N Peoria St -1.3 -0.013

197 Tremont Pl 17th St -1.3 -0.013

198 N Havana St E 51st Ave -1.4 -0.014

199 N Havana St E 40th Ave -1.4 -0.014

200 E 14th Ave N Washington St -1.4 -0.014

201 S Santa Fe Dr W Iowa Ave -1.4 -0.014

202 W 44th Ave N Lowell Blvd -1.5 -0.015

203 N Monaco St E 14th Ave -1.5 -0.015

204 S Colorado Blvd E Ohio Ave -1.5 -0.015

205 E Florida Ave S Holly St -1.5 -0.015

206 W 46th Ave N Zuni St -1.6 -0.016

207 W 44th Ave N Irving St -1.7 -0.017

208 38th St Arkins Ct -1.7 -0.017

209 E 13th Ave N Washington St -1.7 -0.017

210 N Tennyson St W 44th Ave -1.8 -0.018

211 Market St 18th St -1.8 -0.018

212 W 7th Ave N Santa Fe Dr -1.8 -0.018

213 E 8th Ave N Corona St -1.9 -0.019

214 E 6th Ave N Monaco St -1.9 -0.019

215 N Clarkson St E 18th Ave -2 -0.020

216 E 28th Ave N York St -2.1 -0.021

217 20th St Welton St -2.1 -0.021

218 W 38th Ave N Tennyson St -2.2 -0.022

219 N Broadway E 19th Ave -2.2 -0.022

220 W 52nd Ave N Pecos St -2.3 -0.023

221 E 14th Ave N Logan St -2.3 -0.023

222 E 13th Ave N Syracuse St -2.3 -0.023

223 Walnut St 38th St -2.4 -0.024

224 W 26th Ave N Irving St -2.5 -0.025

225 N Monaco St E 17th Ave -2.5 -0.025

226 N Sheridan Blvd W 17th Ave -2.5 -0.025

227 W 38th Ave N Clay St -2.6 -0.026

228 W Colfax Ave N Mariposa St -2.6 -0.026

229 N Vasquez Blvd E 48th Ave -2.7 -0.027

230 W 48th Ave N Zuni St -2.7 -0.027

231 N Steele St E 45th Ave -2.7 -0.027

232 E Colfax Ave N Elizabeth St -2.7 -0.027

264

PFI

Rank Intersection Name Crash Freq Weighted

233 20th St Market St -2.8 -0.028

234 N Washington St Ringsby Ct -2.9 -0.029

235 N Lipan St W 38th Ave -2.9 -0.029

236 N Federal Blvd W 17th Ave -2.9 -0.029

237 N Broadway Blake St -3 -0.030

238 California St 16th St -3 -0.030

239 W Colfax Ave Welton St -3 -0.030

240 W 50th Ave N Lowell Blvd -3.1 -0.031

241 W 48th Ave N Pecos St -3.1 -0.031

242 E 8th Ave N Clarkson St -3.1 -0.031

243 N Washington St Interstate 70 -3.2 -0.032

244 W 29th Ave N Irving St -3.3 -0.033

245 W Colfax Ave N Irving St -3.3 -0.033

246 N Sheridan Blvd W 48th Ave -3.4 -0.034

247 E Stapleton South Dr N Holly St -3.4 -0.034

248 19th St Blake St -3.5 -0.035

249 N Downing St Walnut St -3.6 -0.036

250 18th St Blake St -3.6 -0.036

251 E Colfax Ave N Washington St -3.6 -0.036

252 N Federal Blvd W 46th Ave -3.8 -0.038

253 E 14th Ave N Pearl St -3.8 -0.038

254 N Broadway W 1st Ave -3.8 -0.038

255 N Tower Rd Pena Blvd -3.9 -0.039

256 N Steele St E 40th Ave -3.9 -0.039

257 E 9th Ave N Downing St -3.9 -0.039

258 N Vasquez Blvd E 52nd Ave -4 -0.040

259 N Colorado Blvd E 48th Ave -4 -0.040

260 N Colorado Blvd Interstate 70 -4.1 -0.041

261 15th St Central St -4.1 -0.041

262 E 56th Ave N Quebec St -4.2 -0.042

263 N Pecos St Interstate 70 -4.2 -0.042

264 E 47th Ave N Dallas St -4.2 -0.042

265 N Corona St E 14th Ave -4.2 -0.042

266 W 38th Ave N Navajo St -4.3 -0.043

267 N Sheridan Blvd W 1st Ave -4.3 -0.043

268 Green Valley Ranch Blvd N Himalaya Rd -4.4 -0.044

269 N Sheridan Blvd W 44th Ave -4.4 -0.044

270 N Broadway Larimer St -4.4 -0.044

271 N Federal Blvd W 52nd Ave -4.6 -0.046

265

PFI

Rank Intersection Name Crash Freq Weighted

272 N Havana St E 45th Ave -4.6 -0.046

273 N Tennyson St W 46th Ave -4.8 -0.048

274 N Washington St E 50th Ave -5 -0.051

275 N Speer Blvd W 29th Ave -5.1 -0.052

276 N Colorado Blvd E 35th Ave -5.2 -0.053

277 N Vasquez Blvd N Steele St -5.3 -0.054

278 N Tower Rd E 43rd Ave -5.4 -0.055

279 N Colorado Blvd E 12th Ave -5.4 -0.055

280 N Quebec St E 35th Ave -5.5 -0.056

281 Park Ave E 19th Ave -5.5 -0.056

282 N Federal Blvd Interstate 70 -5.6 -0.057

283 N Monaco St E 26th Ave -5.7 -0.058

284 N Lincoln St E 12th Ave -5.7 -0.058

285 N Washington St Interstate 70 -5.8 -0.059

286 N Washington St E 51st Ave -6 -0.061

287 N Sheridan Blvd Interstate 70 -6 -0.061

288 Arapahoe St 18th St -6 -0.061

289 N Colorado Blvd Interstate 70 -6.1 -0.062

290 N Sheridan Blvd W 29th Ave -6.2 -0.063

291 E 26th Ave N Downing St -6.3 -0.064

292 N Sheridan Blvd W 52nd Ave -6.4 -0.065

293 N Havana St Interstate 70 -6.5 -0.066

294 W 32nd Ave N Sheridan Blvd -6.8 -0.069

295 N Colorado Blvd E 26th Ave -6.8 -0.069

296 N Colorado Blvd E 29th Ave -6.9 -0.070

297 N Federal Blvd W 33rd Ave -7.2 -0.073

298 N Peoria St Interstate 70 -7.4 -0.075

299 W 38th Ave N Perry St -7.5 -0.076

300 N Pecos St W 42nd Ave -7.7 -0.078

301 N Federal Blvd W 1st Ave -7.7 -0.078

302 N Federal Blvd W 35th Ave -7.9 -0.080

303 E Alameda Ave S Havana St -8 -0.081

304 N Peoria St Interstate 70 -8.2 -0.083

305 N Federal Blvd W 41st Ave -8.2 -0.083

306 N Sheridan Blvd W 46th Ave -8.4 -0.085

307 N Quebec St E 26th Ave -8.8 -0.089

308 N Sheridan Blvd W 41st Ave -10.1 -0.102

309 N Speer Blvd Elitch Cir -10.8 -0.109

Note: Intersections highlighted in yellow are referred to current RLC locations

266

Table 67 Analysis for Denver intersections based on crash types.

Inter # Intersection Name AADT (10-12) Front to side Rate Front to rear Rate Other TC

1 N Tower Rd Pena Blvd 24474 5 0.154 9 0.276 2 16

2 N Tower Rd E 56th Ave 16066 18 0.553 11 0.338 8 37

3 E 56th Ave Pena Blvd 10833 3 0.092 9 0.276 3 15

4 E 56th Ave N Havana St 5911 5 0.154 3 0.092 7 15

5 E 56th Ave N Peoria St 2047 1 0.031 2 0.061 1 4

6 E 56th Ave N Quebec St 19322 5 0.154 3 0.092 4 12

7 N Quebec St E 53rd Pl 19555 11 0.338 4 0.123 7 22

8 E 53rd Ave N Chambers Rd 2207 1 0.031 2 0.061 2 5

9 N Vasquez Blvd E 52nd Ave 17050 4 0.123 3 0.092 4 11

10 W 52nd Ave N Pecos St 2648 1 0.031 0 0.000 1 2

11 N Federal Blvd W 52nd Ave 34203 11 0.338 5 0.154 3 19

12 N Sheridan Blvd W 52nd Ave 33049 4 0.123 5 0.154 4 13

13 N Havana St E 51st Ave 7558 3 0.092 7 0.215 1 11

14 E 51st Ave N Peoria St 7417 5 0.154 8 0.246 8 21

15 N Washington St E 51st Ave 14105 1 0.031 0 0.000 1 3

16 N Washington St E 50th Ave 14204 2 0.061 2 0.061 2 6

17 W 50th Ave N Federal Blvd 36777 19 0.583 12 0.368 7 38

18 W 50th Ave N Lowell Blvd 14527 5 0.154 2 0.061 5 12

19 N Peoria St E Andrews Dr 27548 14 0.430 9 0.276 2 28

20 N Federal Blvd Interstate 70 26601 4 0.123 6 0.184 2 12

21 Green Valley Ranch Blvd N Himalaya Rd 27393 6 0.184 3 0.092 7 16

22 N Vasquez Blvd E 48th Ave 17081 9 0.276 5 0.154 1 15

23 N Colorado Blvd E 48th Ave 26754 7 0.215 6 0.184 3 17

24 W 48th Ave N Zuni St 4720 1 0.031 0 0.000 3 4

25 W 48th Ave N Pecos St 20429 7 0.215 7 0.215 2 16

26 N Sheridan Blvd Interstate 70 12930 0 0.000 1 0.031 1 2

27 N Sheridan Blvd W 48th Ave 33358 14 0.430 4 0.123 4 22

28 N Peoria St E 47th Ave 39972 55 1.689 29 0.890 4 88

29 N Havana St E 47th Ave 12714 19 0.583 5 0.154 8 32

267

Inter # Intersection Name AADT (10-12) Front to side Rate Front to rear Rate Other TC

30 N Pecos St Interstate 70 12233 1 0.031 5 0.154 1 7

31 E 47th Ave N Dallas St 9033 1 0.031 1 0.031 2 4

32 N Quebec St N Sand Creek Rd 35723 17 0.522 27 0.829 14 58

33 N Vasquez Blvd N Steele St 15263 2 0.061 1 0.031 3 6

34 N Washington St E 46th Ave 14088 11 0.338 8 0.246 3 22

35 N Colorado Blvd Interstate 70 14753 4 0.123 2 0.061 3 9

36 N Dahlia St E Stapleton North Dr 13433 10 0.307 7 0.215 13 30

37 E 46th Ave N Josephine St 13483 12 0.368 2 0.061 12 26

38 E 46th Ave N Steele St 13815 19 0.583 3 0.092 14 36

39 E 46th Ave N Clayton St 3031 3 0.092 5 0.154 1 9

40 E 46th Ave N York St 10730 11 0.338 5 0.154 7 23

41 N Federal Blvd W 46th Ave 35485 14 0.430 6 0.184 2 22

42 W 46th Ave N Pecos St 22188 21 0.645 7 0.215 7 35

43 W 46th Ave N Zuni St 4440 2 0.061 2 0.061 3 7

44 N Washington St Interstate 70 20902 5 0.154 1 0.031 2 8

45 W 46th Ave N Lowell Blvd 7110 6 0.184 2 0.061 8 16

46 N Dahlia St E Stapleton South Dr 8273 12 0.368 3 0.092 7 22

47 N Tennyson St W 46th Ave 11001 1 0.031 0 0.000 3 4

48 N Sheridan Blvd W 46th Ave 33077 2 0.061 3 0.092 2 7

49 N Quebec St Interstate 70 33116 13 0.399 21 0.645 6 40

50 N Havana St E 45th Ave 12548 3 0.092 2 0.061 1 6

51 N Colorado Blvd Interstate 70 25710 4 0.123 3 0.092 3 10

52 N Washington St Interstate 70 22833 9 0.276 4 0.123 4 17

53 N Steele St E 45th Ave 14480 8 0.246 4 0.123 1 13

54 E Stapleton North Dr N Monaco St 5732 6 0.184 3 0.092 3 12

55 N Holly St E Stapleton North Dr 27373 15 0.461 8 0.246 4 27

56 N Peoria St E 45th Ave 26870 16 0.491 8 0.246 2 26

57 N Washington St E 45th Ave 15308 16 0.491 3 0.092 8 27

58 N Monaco St E Stapleton South Dr 28373 23 0.706 15 0.461 12 50

59 E Stapleton South Dr N Holly St 17283 5 0.154 5 0.154 3 13

60 N Quebec St Interstate 70 22834 1 0.031 7 0.215 28 36

268

Inter # Intersection Name AADT (10-12) Front to side Rate Front to rear Rate Other TC

61 N Havana St Interstate 70 35562 3 0.092 8 0.246 3 14

62 N Chambers Rd E 46th Ave 14442 4 0.123 0 0.000 20 24

63 W 44th Ave N Lowell Blvd 5969 3 0.092 2 0.061 4 9

64 W 44th Ave N Irving St 5498 5 0.154 2 0.061 1 8

65 N Federal Blvd W 44th Ave 35536 8 0.246 2 0.061 20 30

66 N Tennyson St W 44th Ave 9712 7 0.215 2 0.061 3 12

67 N Washington St Ringsby Ct 5146 2 0.061 2 0.061 0 4

68 N Sheridan Blvd W 44th Ave 37134 8 0.246 3 0.092 10 21

69 N Tower Rd E 43rd Ave 21744 5 0.154 2 0.061 3 10

70 N Peoria St Interstate 70 62204 2 0.061 4 0.123 16 22

71 38th St Arkins Ct 6483 4 0.123 0 0.000 5 9

72 N Pecos St W 42nd Ave 20381 1 0.031 1 0.031 0 2

73 E 40th Ave N Chambers Rd 26699 8 0.246 16 0.491 9 33

74 N Peoria St Interstate 70 42733 3 0.092 6 0.184 3 12

75 N Havana St E 40th Ave 14319 11 0.338 1 0.031 5 17

76 E Smith Rd N Monaco St 5073 2 0.061 0 0.000 21 23

77 N Colorado Blvd E 40th Ave 51939 2 0.061 8 0.246 41 51

78 N Steele St E 40th Ave 16532 1 0.031 2 0.061 8 11

79 E 40th Ave N York St 17016 13 0.399 3 0.092 10 26

80 N Brighton Blvd 38th St 15262 6 0.184 3 0.092 23 32

81 N Federal Blvd W 41st Ave 34186 3 0.092 1 0.031 4 8

82 N Sheridan Blvd W 41st Ave 35557 1 0.031 2 0.061 0 3

83 N Quebec St E Smith Rd 11868 25 0.768 2 0.061 20 47

84 N Peoria St E 39th Ave 47798 26 0.798 19 0.583 3 48

85 Walnut St 38th St 11793 5 0.154 5 0.154 2 12

86 W 38th Ave N Lowell Blvd 10289 11 0.338 5 0.154 13 29

87 N Downing St Walnut St 7030 1 0.031 2 0.061 1 4

88 W 38th Ave N Irving St 9823 10 0.307 1 0.031 7 18

89 N Lipan St W 38th Ave 11244 2 0.061 4 0.123 4 10

90 W 38th Ave N Perry St 22534 1 0.031 2 0.061 1 4

91 W 38th Ave N Navajo St 12733 1 0.031 5 0.154 1 7

269

Inter # Intersection Name AADT (10-12) Front to side Rate Front to rear Rate Other TC

92 W 38th Ave N Pecos St 22593 11 0.338 2 0.061 17 30

93 W 38th Ave N Tejon St 9045 3 0.092 3 0.092 7 13

94 W 38th Ave N Zuni St 7143 8 0.246 6 0.184 4 18

95 W 38th Ave N Fox St 18782 11 0.338 12 0.368 15 38

96 N Federal Blvd W 38th Ave 42654 41 1.259 8 0.246 19 68

97 W 38th Ave N Tennyson St 13606 6 0.184 7 0.215 1 14

98 W 38th Ave N Clay St 7967 2 0.061 5 0.154 1 8

99 N Sheridan Blvd W 38th Ave 35668 29 0.890 9 0.276 2 40

100 N Peoria St E 37th Ave 37269 19 0.583 14 0.430 6 39

101 N Quebec St E 36th Ave 41037 17 0.522 16 0.491 7 40

102 Park Ave W Interstate 25 17615 14 0.430 14 0.430 4 32

103 N Quebec St E 35th Ave 39813 7 0.215 5 0.154 7 19

104 N Colorado Blvd E 35th Ave 47228 8 0.246 7 0.215 8 23

105 Park Ave W N Globeville Rd 38751 14 0.430 13 0.399 11 38

106 N Federal Blvd W 35th Ave 36297 3 0.092 1 0.031 6 10

107 N Federal Blvd W 33rd Ave 38413 7 0.215 4 0.123 2 13

108

E Martin Luther King

Blvd N Quebec St 18060 42 1.290 3 0.092 26 71

109

E Martin Luther King

Blvd N Monaco St 18244 34 1.044 7 0.215 11 52

110 N Colorado Blvd

E Martin Luther King

Blvd 25038 38 1.167 3 0.092 31 72

111 W 32nd Ave N Federal Blvd 35237 21 0.645 0 0.000 14 35

112 W 32nd Ave N Sheridan Blvd 35367 4 0.123 7 0.215 2 13

113 E 31st Ave N York St 24927 27 0.829 3 0.092 15 45

114 N Federal Blvd N Speer Blvd 26096 11 0.338 16 0.491 5 32

115 N Broadway Blake St 14190 5 0.154 5 0.154 2 12

116 N Colorado Blvd E 29th Ave 60916 9 0.276 6 0.184 8 23

117 N Lowell Blvd W 29th Ave 10716 6 0.184 9 0.276 0 15

118 N Federal Blvd W 29th Ave 34816 13 0.399 3 0.092 14 30

119 N Speer Blvd W 29th Ave 62197 16 0.491 5 0.154 8 29

120 W 29th Ave N Irving St 7311 2 0.061 1 0.031 2 5

270

Inter # Intersection Name AADT (10-12) Front to side Rate Front to rear Rate Other TC

121 N Sheridan Blvd W 29th Ave 36004 7 0.215 3 0.092 5 15

122 15th St Central St 13211 4 0.123 2 0.061 2 8

123 E 28th Ave N York St 2261 0 0.000 1 0.031 1 2

124 Park Ave W Blake St 12429 0 0.000 3 0.092 21 24

125 N Broadway Larimer St 10834 1 0.031 4 0.123 0 5

126 15th St Platte St 13985 7 0.215 2 0.061 9 18

127 Blake St 22nd St 12179 17 0.522 8 0.246 8 33

128 N Quebec St E 26th Ave 33372 2 0.061 1 0.031 3 6

129 N Monaco St E 26th Ave 15626 2 0.061 1 0.031 2 5

130 N Colorado Blvd E 26th Ave 57334 7 0.215 11 0.338 4 22

131 22nd St Larimer St 8280 6 0.184 4 0.123 7 17

132 N Federal Blvd W 26th Ave 34151 12 0.368 9 0.276 12 33

133 W 26th Ave N Irving St 7673 3 0.092 5 0.154 0 8

134 E 26th Ave N Downing St 28799 5 0.154 3 0.092 3 11

135 N York St E 26th Ave 25543 15 0.461 12 0.368 0 27

136 20th St Blake St 15724 11 0.338 14 0.430 3 28

137 22nd St Lawrence St 20624 13 0.399 11 0.338 10 34

138 20th St Market St 40174 13 0.399 5 0.154 9 27

139 22nd St Arapahoe St 18224 11 0.338 15 0.461 3 29

140 19th St Blake St 11182 1 0.031 6 0.184 1 8

141 22nd St N Broadway 19227 17 0.522 22 0.676 10 49

142 18th St Blake St 45550 15 0.461 4 0.123 8 27

143 N Speer Blvd Elitch Cir 59801 5 0.154 2 0.061 4 11

144 20th St Lawrence St 14190 25 0.768 13 0.399 10 48

145 Market St 18th St 23771 11 0.338 4 0.123 7 22

146 N Broadway Champa St 7181 8 0.246 15 0.461 3 26

147 N Quebec St E 23rd Ave 3150 15 0.461 5 0.154 5 25

148 N Colorado Blvd E 23rd Ave 5732 7 0.215 23 0.706 17 47

149 19th St Curtis St 7789 4 0.123 6 0.184 3 13

150 Park Ave W Tremont Pl 2150 3 0.092 2 0.061 1 6

151 Arapahoe St 18th St 16900 1 0.031 3 0.092 1 5

271

Inter # Intersection Name AADT (10-12) Front to side Rate Front to rear Rate Other TC

152 N Speer Blvd Blake St 27990 6 0.184 14 0.430 9 29

153 20th St Welton St 31339 11 0.338 13 0.399 1 25

154 E Montview Blvd N Quebec St 11804 14 0.430 21 0.645 9 44

155 N Speer Blvd Auraria Pkwy 52621 15 0.461 31 0.952 5 51

156 N Colorado Blvd E Montview Blvd 10352 7 0.215 17 0.522 18 42

157 N Broadway Welton St 29816 11 0.338 14 0.430 7 32

158 Park Ave E 19th Ave 17698 4 0.123 1 0.031 2 7

159 N Lincoln St E 19th Ave 18627 6 0.184 7 0.215 8 21

160 N Broadway E 19th Ave 28090 4 0.123 17 0.522 2 23

161 15th St Champa St 16986 12 0.368 4 0.123 18 34

162 17th St Welton St 14959 23 0.706 11 0.338 2 36

163 California St 16th St 4649 1 0.031 0 0.000 2 3

164 E 18th Ave N Franklin St 956 15 0.461 7 0.215 2 24

165 N Clarkson St E 18th Ave 16990 6 0.184 5 0.154 6 17

166 15th St Stout St 11730 9 0.276 13 0.399 1 23

167 N Yosemite St E 17th Ave 1487 3 0.092 1 0.031 4 8

168 N Monaco St E 17th Ave 14690 0 0.000 7 0.215 7 14

169 Tremont Pl 17th St 16816 11 0.338 5 0.154 3 19

170 N Colorado Blvd E 17th Ave 38405 41 1.259 36 1.105 10 87

171 N Federal Blvd W 17th Ave 36510 12 0.368 5 0.154 8 25

172 N Sheridan Blvd W 17th Ave 38151 11 0.338 13 0.399 3 27

173 Welton St 15th St 7600 11 0.338 12 0.368 3 26

174 N Broadway E 17th Ave 24856 22 0.676 16 0.491 9 47

175 E 17th Ave N Downing St 4477 6 0.184 2 0.061 4 12

176 Park Ave E 17th Ave 10985 6 0.184 8 0.246 4 18

177 N Lincoln St E 17th Ave 11812 14 0.430 14 0.430 2 30

178 15th St Tremont Pl 13556 12 0.368 5 0.154 5 22

179 Glenarm Pl 14th St 2771 2 0.061 4 0.123 3 9

180 E 16th Ave N York St 11856 7 0.215 4 0.123 7 18

181 E Colfax Ave N Quebec St 31368 15 0.461 26 0.798 20 61

182 E Colfax Ave N Monaco St 29468 26 0.798 34 1.044 12 72

272

Inter # Intersection Name AADT (10-12) Front to side Rate Front to rear Rate Other TC

183 N Colorado Blvd E Colfax Ave 50910 65 1.996 21 0.645 23 109

184 E Colfax Ave N Elizabeth St 15816 3 0.092 6 0.184 5 14

185 W Colfax Ave N Irving St 34588 9 0.276 12 0.368 2 23

186 W Colfax Ave N Kalamath St 10682 63 1.935 43 1.320 31 137

187 W Colfax Ave Welton St 32820 13 0.399 3 0.092 7 23

188 E Colfax Ave N York St 31244 25 0.768 11 0.338 2 38

189 N Sheridan Blvd W Colfax Ave 44335 36 1.105 27 0.829 0 63

190 E Colfax Ave N Washington St 32184 8 0.246 8 0.246 5 21

191 E Colfax Ave N Logan St 6288 9 0.276 21 0.645 11 41

192 W Colfax Ave 7th St 52078 41 1.259 18 0.553 10 69

193 W Colfax Ave N Mariposa St 52493 21 0.645 11 0.338 1 33

194 N Quebec St E 14th Ave 19096 3 0.092 12 0.368 16 31

195 N Monaco St E 14th Ave 14995 7 0.215 2 0.061 8 17

196 E 14th Ave N Josephine St 16634 13 0.399 5 0.154 11 29

197 E 14th Ave N York St 20624 17 0.522 14 0.430 9 40

198 N Colorado Blvd E 14th Ave 40345 22 0.676 34 1.044 27 83

199 N Corona St E 14th Ave 7816 1 0.031 0 0.000 2 3

200 E 14th Ave N Downing St 9643 15 0.461 12 0.368 0 27

201 E 14th Ave N Pearl St 14731 4 0.123 2 0.061 4 10

202 E 14th Ave N Washington St 9558 6 0.184 4 0.123 3 13

203 E 14th Ave N Logan St 12844 5 0.154 1 0.031 7 13

204 N Grant St E 14th Ave 17969 13 0.399 4 0.123 6 23

205 N Lincoln St E 14th Ave 30688 17 0.522 24 0.737 0 41

206 N Broadway E 14th Ave 20428 21 0.645 8 0.246 3 32

207 N Speer Blvd W 14th Ave 61501 21 0.645 30 0.921 15 66

208 N Sheridan Blvd W 14th Ave 13311 22 0.676 9 0.276 2 33

209 N Federal Blvd W 14th Ave 41170 12 0.368 26 0.798 10 48

210 E 13th Ave N Syracuse St 12838 6 0.184 3 0.092 4 13

211 E 13th Ave N Josephine St 16634 7 0.215 16 0.491 4 27

212 E 13th Ave N Downing St 8055 12 0.368 5 0.154 13 30

213 E 13th Ave N Washington St 9558 3 0.092 6 0.184 3 12

273

Inter # Intersection Name AADT (10-12) Front to side Rate Front to rear Rate Other TC

214 N Colorado Blvd E 13th Ave 12556 33 1.013 11 0.338 6 50

215 N Logan St E 13th Ave 10385 9 0.276 5 0.154 11 25

216 E 13th Ave N Grant St 28379 14 0.430 4 0.123 9 27

217 N Lincoln St E 13th Ave 25399 13 0.399 21 0.645 8 42

218 N Colorado Blvd E 12th Ave 22144 3 0.092 4 0.123 3 10

219 N Lincoln St E 12th Ave 56525 7 0.215 15 0.461 3 25

220 N Federal Blvd W 10th Ave 35303 21 0.645 13 0.399 8 42

221 W 10th Ave N Knox Ct 4265 5 0.154 5 0.154 1 11

222 E 9th Ave N Downing St 10058 1 0.031 3 0.092 2 6

223 N Speer Blvd N Bannock St 43765 11 0.338 7 0.215 16 34

224 N Quebec St E 8th Ave 2538 7 0.215 4 0.123 3 14

225 N Monaco St E 8th Ave 9777 9 0.276 22 0.676 8 39

226 N Colorado Blvd E 8th Ave 29242 23 0.706 12 0.368 31 66

227 E 8th Ave N Corona St 7953 6 0.184 3 0.092 1 10

228 E 8th Ave N Clarkson St 14418 4 0.123 4 0.123 4 12

229 W 8th Ave N Broadway 35259 31 0.952 32 0.983 3 66

230 W 7th Ave N Santa Fe Dr 16175 11 0.338 2 0.061 4 17

231 N Kalamath St W 7th Ave 36984 15 0.461 26 0.798 4 45

232 E 6th Ave N Monaco St 18109 3 0.092 4 0.123 11 18

233 E 6th Ave N Colorado Blvd 31832 44 1.351 46 1.413 10 100

234 E 6th Ave N Lincoln St 33572 38 1.167 43 1.320 32 113

235 W 6th Ave N Broadway 35259 27 0.829 16 0.491 27 70

236 E 6th Ave N Corona St 7953 11 0.338 5 0.154 4 20

237 N Colorado Blvd E 3rd Ave 32319 51 1.566 24 0.737 13 88

238 N Broadway W 3rd Ave 35750 9 0.276 12 0.368 11 32

239 E Speer Blvd N Corona St 28524 16 0.491 7 0.215 4 27

240 N Broadway W 1st Ave 35750 7 0.215 6 0.184 9 22

241 N University Blvd E 1st Ave 44343 53 1.627 31 0.952 9 93

242 E 1st Ave N Saint Paul St 27335 13 0.399 3 0.092 14 30

243 N Colorado Blvd E 1st Ave 32319 37 1.136 26 0.798 29 92

244 N Federal Blvd W 1st Ave 41615 4 0.123 6 0.184 3 13

274

Inter # Intersection Name AADT (10-12) Front to side Rate Front to rear Rate Other TC

245 N Sheridan Blvd W 1st Ave 50577 13 0.399 8 0.246 6 27

246 E 1st Ave N Steele St 41960 14 0.430 8 0.246 11 33

247 S Steele St E Bayaud Ave 8229 13 0.399 24 0.737 3 40

248 S Colorado Blvd E Alameda Ave 21762 35 1.075 25 0.768 30 90

249 E Alameda Ave E Fairmount Dr 38659 20 0.614 14 0.430 5 39

250 E Alameda Ave S Quebec St 38522 29 0.890 43 1.320 15 87

251 E Alameda Ave S Havana St 39032 5 0.154 4 0.123 2 11

252 E Alameda Ave Leetsdale Dr 1524 34 1.044 22 0.676 20 76

253 E Alameda Ave S Monaco St 36191 56 1.720 32 0.983 17 105

254 S University Blvd E Alameda Ave 40835 34 1.044 7 0.215 18 59

255 E Alameda Ave S Downing St 17938 2 0.061 4 0.123 14 20

256 E Alameda Ave S Lincoln St 28055 7 0.215 13 0.399 9 29

257 W Alameda Ave S Kalamath St 23034 36 1.105 34 1.044 6 76

258 S Broadway W Alameda Ave 34563 36 1.105 17 0.522 1 54

259 E Alameda Ave S Washington St 8062 7 0.215 16 0.491 6 29

260 W Alameda Ave S Platte River Dr 11223 8 0.246 8 0.246 8 24

261 W Alameda Ave S Sheridan Blvd 14353 3 0.092 9 0.276 25 37

262 W Alameda Ave S Yuma St 15930 6 0.184 12 0.368 5 23

263 W Alameda Ave S Perry St 18321 12 0.368 12 0.368 0 24

264 W Alameda Ave S Knox Ct 17243 7 0.215 32 0.983 3 42

265 S Federal Blvd W Alameda Ave 39080 54 1.658 42 1.290 5 101

266 Leetsdale Dr S Holly St 13162 33 1.013 13 0.399 11 57

267 S Colorado Blvd E Cherry Creek North Dr 18406 36 1.105 8 0.246 24 68

268 S Federal Blvd W Virginia Ave 12112 10 0.307 6 0.184 8 24

269 S Monaco St Leetsdale Dr 43168 53 1.627 17 0.522 84 154

270 S Colorado Blvd E Ohio Ave 13495 4 0.123 2 0.061 10 16

271 S Broadway E Ohio Ave 10923 22 0.676 11 0.338 8 41

272 S Broadway E Ohio Ave 29901 14 0.430 13 0.399 12 39

273 Leetsdale Dr S Oneida St 2667 26 0.798 6 0.184 14 46

274 S Federal Blvd W Kentucky Ave 18273 10 0.307 4 0.123 14 28

275 S Broadway W Kentucky Ave 11292 14 0.430 4 0.123 28 46

275

Inter # Intersection Name AADT (10-12) Front to side Rate Front to rear Rate Other TC

276 Morrison Rd W Kentucky Ave 10923 4 0.123 12 0.368 12 28

277 Leetsdale Dr S Quebec St 26385 44 1.351 23 0.706 79 146

278 E Mississippi Ave S Parker Rd 20945 14 0.430 25 0.768 7 46

279 E Mississippi Ave S Colorado Blvd 36166 6 0.184 19 0.583 28 53

280 S Santa Fe Dr W Mississippi Ave 19284 13 0.399 32 0.983 32 77

281 W Mississippi Ave S Platte River Dr 42949 76 2.334 24 0.737 6 106

282 S Broadway W Mississippi Ave 7443 11 0.338 13 0.399 8 32

283 S Federal Blvd W Mississippi Ave 28600 38 1.167 16 0.491 13 67

284 S Colorado Blvd E Louisiana Ave 42455 54 1.658 31 0.952 4 89

285 S Colorado Blvd E Arkansas Ave 17283 26 0.798 31 0.952 1 58

286 E Florida Ave S Holly St 11147 4 0.123 6 0.184 4 14

287 S Santa Fe Dr W Florida Ave 18273 8 0.246 13 0.399 25 46

288 S Federal Blvd W Florida Ave 38495 26 0.798 32 0.983 7 65

289 W Florida Ave S Irving St 16274 24 0.737 7 0.215 5 36

290 S Colorado Blvd E Iowa Ave 18272 31 0.952 22 0.676 6 59

291 S Santa Fe Dr W Iowa Ave 51292 16 0.491 13 0.399 7 36

292 S Colorado Blvd E Mexico Ave 65915 35 1.075 26 0.798 8 69

293 S Federal Blvd W Jewell Ave 28763 35 1.075 26 0.798 1 62

294 S Sheridan Blvd W Jewell Ave 14940 35 1.075 14 0.430 5 54

295 W Evans Ave S Sheridan Blvd 10398 43 1.320 11 0.338 1 55

296 S Colorado Blvd E Evans Ave 27434 12 0.368 65 1.996 9 86

297 E Evans Ave S Downing St 34651 17 0.522 12 0.368 3 32

298 E Evans Ave S High St 4950 5 0.154 3 0.092 7 15

299 S University Blvd E Evans Ave 25836 45 1.382 40 1.228 14 99

300 S Broadway E Evans Ave 29596 21 0.645 42 1.290 5 68

301 E Evans Ave S Quebec St 13237 25 0.768 6 0.184 5 36

302 S Colorado Blvd E Yale Ave 23218 17 0.522 13 0.399 8 38

303 E Hampden Ave S Dayton St 56000 6 0.184 12 0.368 21 39

304 E Hampden Ave S Yosemite St 37922 17 0.522 24 0.737 12 53

305 E Hampden Ave S Tamarac Dr 13153 43 1.320 13 0.399 17 73

306 E Hampden Ave S Monaco St 10662 25 0.768 13 0.399 13 51

276

Inter # Intersection Name AADT (10-12) Front to side Rate Front to rear Rate Other TC

307 E Hampden Ave S Locust St 32415 32 0.983 12 0.368 16 60

308 W 8th Ave N Speer Blvd 31832 42 1.290 31 0.952 17 90

309 N Kalamath St W 6th Ave 32984 7 0.215 5 0.154 23 35

Total 10063

Ave 32.6

Note: Intersections highlighted in yellow are referred to current RLC locations

277

Table 68 Denver intersections ranked based on front to side crashes.

Rank Intersection Name Front to Side Rate Weighted

1 W Mississippi Ave S Platte River Dr 2.33 0.050

2 N Colorado Blvd E Colfax Ave 2.00 0.043

3 W Colfax Ave N Kalamath St 1.93 0.041

4 E Alameda Ave S Monaco St 1.72 0.037

5 N Peoria St E 47th Ave 1.69 0.036

6 S Federal Blvd W Alameda Ave 1.66 0.036

7 S Colorado Blvd E Louisiana Ave 1.66 0.036

8 S Monaco St Leetsdale Dr 1.63 0.035

9 S University Blvd E 1st Ave 1.63 0.035

10 N Colorado Blvd E 3rd Ave 1.57 0.034

11 N University Blvd E Evans Ave 1.38 0.030

12 E 6th Ave N Colorado Blvd 1.35 0.029

13 Leetsdale Dr S Quebec St 1.35 0.029

14 W Evans Ave S Sheridan Blvd 1.32 0.028

15 E Hampden Ave S Tamarac Dr 1.32 0.028

16 E Martin Luther King Blvd N Quebec St 1.29 0.028

17 W 8th Ave N Speer Blvd 1.29 0.028

18 N Federal Blvd W 38th Ave 1.26 0.027

19 N Colorado Blvd E 17th Ave 1.26 0.027

20 W Colfax Ave 7th St 1.26 0.027

21 N Colorado Blvd

E Martin Luther King Blvd

1.17 0.025

22 E 6th Ave N Lincoln St 1.17 0.025

23 S Federal Blvd W Mississippi Ave 1.17 0.025

24 N Colorado Blvd E 1st Ave 1.14 0.024

25 N Sheridan Blvd W Colfax Ave 1.11 0.024

26 W Alameda Ave S Kalamath St 1.11 0.024

27 S Broadway W Alameda Ave 1.11 0.024

28 S Colorado Blvd E Cherry Creek North Dr 1.11 0.024

29 S Colorado Blvd E Alameda Ave 1.07 0.023

30 S Colorado Blvd E Mexico Ave 1.07 0.023

31 S Federal Blvd W Jewell Ave 1.07 0.023

32 S Sheridan Blvd W Jewell Ave 1.07 0.023

33 E Martin Luther King Blvd N Monaco St 1.04 0.022

34 E Alameda Ave Leetsdale Dr 1.04 0.022

35 S University Blvd E Alameda Ave 1.04 0.022

36 N Colorado Blvd E 13th Ave 1.01 0.022

37 Leetsdale Dr S Holly St 1.01 0.022

38 E Hampden Ave S Locust St 0.98 0.021

39 W 8th Ave N Broadway 0.95 0.020

40 S Colorado Blvd E Iowa Ave 0.95 0.020

41 N Sheridan Blvd W 38th Ave 0.89 0.019

278

Rank Intersection Name Front to Side Rate Weighted

42 E Alameda Ave S Quebec St 0.89 0.019

43 E 31st Ave N York St 0.83 0.018

44 W 6th Ave N Broadway 0.83 0.018

45 N Peoria St E 39th Ave 0.80 0.017

46 E Colfax Ave N Monaco St 0.80 0.017

47 Leetsdale Dr S Oneida St 0.80 0.017

48 S Colorado Blvd E Arkansas Ave 0.80 0.017

49 S Federal Blvd W Florida Ave 0.80 0.017

50 N Quebec St E Smith Rd 0.77 0.016

51 20th St Lawrence St 0.77 0.016

52 E Colfax Ave N York St 0.77 0.016

53 E Evans Ave S Quebec St 0.77 0.016

54 E Hampden Ave S Monaco St 0.77 0.016

55 W Florida Ave S Irving St 0.74 0.016

56 N Monaco St E Stapleton South Dr 0.71 0.015

57 17th St Welton St 0.71 0.015

58 N Colorado Blvd E 8th Ave 0.71 0.015

59 N Broadway E 17th Ave 0.68 0.014

60 N Colorado Blvd E 14th Ave 0.68 0.014

61 N Sheridan Blvd W 14th Ave 0.68 0.014

62 S Broadway E Ohio Ave 0.68 0.014

63 W 46th Ave N Pecos St 0.64 0.014

64 W 32nd Ave N Federal Blvd 0.64 0.014

65 W Colfax Ave N Mariposa St 0.64 0.014

66 N Broadway E 14th Ave 0.64 0.014

67 N Speer Blvd W 14th Ave 0.64 0.014

68 N Federal Blvd W 10th Ave 0.64 0.014

69 S Broadway E Evans Ave 0.64 0.014

70 E Alameda Ave E Fairmount Dr 0.61 0.013

71 W 50th Ave N Federal Blvd 0.58 0.013

72 N Havana St E 47th Ave 0.58 0.013

73 E 46th Ave N Steele St 0.58 0.013

74 N Peoria St E 37th Ave 0.58 0.013

75 N Tower Rd E 56th Ave 0.55 0.012

76 N Quebec St N Sand Creek Rd 0.52 0.011

77 N Quebec St E 36th Ave 0.52 0.011

78 Blake St 22nd St 0.52 0.011

79 22nd St N Broadway 0.52 0.011

80 E 14th Ave N York St 0.52 0.011

81 N Lincoln St E 14th Ave 0.52 0.011

82 E Evans Ave S Downing St 0.52 0.011

83 S Colorado Blvd E Yale Ave 0.52 0.011

84 E Hampden Ave S Yosemite St 0.52 0.011

279

Rank Intersection Name Front to Side Rate Weighted

85 N Peoria St E 45th Ave 0.49 0.011

86 N Washington St E 45th Ave 0.49 0.011

87 N Speer Blvd W 29th Ave 0.49 0.011

88 E Speer Blvd N Corona St 0.49 0.011

89 S Santa Fe Dr W Iowa Ave 0.49 0.011

90 N Holly St E Stapleton North Dr 0.46 0.010

91 N York St E 26th Ave 0.46 0.010

92 18th St Blake St 0.46 0.010

93 N Quebec St E 23rd Ave 0.46 0.010

94 N Speer Blvd Auraria Pkwy 0.46 0.010

95 E 18th Ave N Franklin St 0.46 0.010

96 E Colfax Ave N Quebec St 0.46 0.010

97 E 14th Ave N Downing St 0.46 0.010

98 N Kalamath St W 7th Ave 0.46 0.010

99 N Peoria St E Andrews Dr 0.43 0.009

100 N Sheridan Blvd W 48th Ave 0.43 0.009

101 N Federal Blvd W 46th Ave 0.43 0.009

102 Park Ave W Interstate 25 0.43 0.009

103 Park Ave W N Globeville Rd 0.43 0.009

104 E Montview Blvd N Quebec St 0.43 0.009

105 N Lincoln St E 17th Ave 0.43 0.009

106 E 13th Ave N Grant St 0.43 0.009

107 E 1st Ave N Steele St 0.43 0.009

108 S Broadway E Ohio Ave 0.43 0.009

109 S Broadway W Kentucky Ave 0.43 0.009

110 E Mississippi Ave S Parker Rd 0.43 0.009

111 N Quebec St Interstate 70 0.40 0.009

112 E 40th Ave N York St 0.40 0.009

113 N Federal Blvd W 29th Ave 0.40 0.009

114 22nd St Lawrence St 0.40 0.009

115 20th St Market St 0.40 0.009

116 W Colfax Ave Welton St 0.40 0.009

117 E 14th Ave N Josephine St 0.40 0.009

118 N Grant St E 14th Ave 0.40 0.009

119 N Lincoln St E 13th Ave 0.40 0.009

120 E 1st Ave N Saint Paul St 0.40 0.009

121 N Sheridan Blvd W 1st Ave 0.40 0.009

122 S Steele St E Bayaud Ave 0.40 0.009

123 S Santa Fe Dr W Mississippi Ave 0.40 0.009

124 E 46th Ave N Josephine St 0.37 0.008

125 N Dahlia St E Stapleton South Dr 0.37 0.008

126 N Federal Blvd W 26th Ave 0.37 0.008

127 15th St Champa St 0.37 0.008

280

Rank Intersection Name Front to Side Rate Weighted

128 N Federal Blvd W 17th Ave 0.37 0.008

129 15th St Tremont Pl 0.37 0.008

130 N Federal Blvd W 14th Ave 0.37 0.008

131 E 13th Ave N Downing St 0.37 0.008

132 W Alameda Ave S Perry St 0.37 0.008

133 S Colorado Blvd E Evans Ave 0.37 0.008

134 N Quebec St E 53rd Pl 0.34 0.007

135 N Federal Blvd W 52nd Ave 0.34 0.007

136 N Washington St E 46th Ave 0.34 0.007

137 E 46th Ave N York St 0.34 0.007

138 N Havana St E 40th Ave 0.34 0.007

139 W 38th Ave N Lowell Blvd 0.34 0.007

140 W 38th Ave N Pecos St 0.34 0.007

141 W 38th Ave N Fox St 0.34 0.007

142 N Federal Blvd N Speer Blvd 0.34 0.007

143 20th St Blake St 0.34 0.007

144 22nd St Arapahoe St 0.34 0.007

145 Market St 18th St 0.34 0.007

146 20th St Welton St 0.34 0.007

147 N Broadway Welton St 0.34 0.007

148 Tremont Pl 17th St 0.34 0.007

149 N Sheridan Blvd W 17th Ave 0.34 0.007

150 Welton St 15th St 0.34 0.007

151 N Speer Blvd N Bannock St 0.34 0.007

152 W 7th Ave N Santa Fe Dr 0.34 0.007

153 E 6th Ave N Corona St 0.34 0.007

154 S Broadway W Mississippi Ave 0.34 0.007

155 N Dahlia St E Stapleton North Dr 0.31 0.007

156 W 38th Ave N Irving St 0.31 0.007

157 S Federal Blvd W Virginia Ave 0.31 0.007

158 S Federal Blvd W Kentucky Ave 0.31 0.007

159 N Vasquez Blvd E 48th Ave 0.28 0.006

160 N Washington St Interstate 70 0.28 0.006

161 N Colorado Blvd E 29th Ave 0.28 0.006

162 15th St Stout St 0.28 0.006

163 W Colfax Ave N Irving St 0.28 0.006

164 E Colfax Ave N Logan St 0.28 0.006

165 N Logan St E 13th Ave 0.28 0.006

166 N Monaco St E 8th Ave 0.28 0.006

167 N Broadway W 3rd Ave 0.28 0.006

168 N Steele St E 45th Ave 0.25 0.005

169 N Federal Blvd W 44th Ave 0.25 0.005

170 N Sheridan Blvd W 44th Ave 0.25 0.005

281

Rank Intersection Name Front to Side Rate Weighted

171 E 40th Ave N Chambers Rd 0.25 0.005

172 W 38th Ave N Zuni St 0.25 0.005

173 N Colorado Blvd E 35th Ave 0.25 0.005

174 N Broadway Champa St 0.25 0.005

175 E Colfax Ave N Washington St 0.25 0.005

176 W Alameda Ave S Platte River Dr 0.25 0.005

177 S Santa Fe Dr W Florida Ave 0.25 0.005

178 N Colorado Blvd E 48th Ave 0.21 0.005

179 W 48th Ave N Pecos St 0.21 0.005

180 N Tennyson St W 44th Ave 0.21 0.005

181 N Quebec St E 35th Ave 0.21 0.005

182 N Federal Blvd W 33rd Ave 0.21 0.005

183 N Sheridan Blvd W 29th Ave 0.21 0.005

184 15th St Platte St 0.21 0.005

185 N Colorado Blvd E 26th Ave 0.21 0.005

186 N Colorado Blvd E 23rd Ave 0.21 0.005

187 N Colorado Blvd E Montview Blvd 0.21 0.005

188 E 16th Ave N York St 0.21 0.005

189 N Monaco St E 14th Ave 0.21 0.005

190 E 13th Ave N Josephine St 0.21 0.005

191 N Lincoln St E 12th Ave 0.21 0.005

192 N Quebec St E 8th Ave 0.21 0.005

193 N Broadway W 1st Ave 0.21 0.005

194 E Alameda Ave S Lincoln St 0.21 0.005

195 E Alameda Ave S Washington St 0.21 0.005

196 W Alameda Ave S Knox Ct 0.21 0.005

197 N Kalamath St W 6th Ave 0.21 0.005

198 Green Valley Ranch Blvd N Himalaya Rd 0.18 0.004

199 W 46th Ave N Lowell Blvd 0.18 0.004

200 E Stapleton North Dr N Monaco St 0.18 0.004

201 N Brighton Blvd 38th St 0.18 0.004

202 W 38th Ave N Tennyson St 0.18 0.004

203 N Lowell Blvd W 29th Ave 0.18 0.004

204 22nd St Larimer St 0.18 0.004

205 N Speer Blvd Blake St 0.18 0.004

206 N Lincoln St E 19th Ave 0.18 0.004

207 N Clarkson St E 18th Ave 0.18 0.004

208 E 17th Ave N Downing St 0.18 0.004

209 Park Ave E 17th Ave 0.18 0.004

210 E 14th Ave N Washington St 0.18 0.004

211 E 13th Ave N Syracuse St 0.18 0.004

212 E 8th Ave N Corona St 0.18 0.004

213 W Alameda Ave S Yuma St 0.18 0.004

282

Rank Intersection Name Front to Side Rate Weighted

214 E Mississippi Ave S Colorado Blvd 0.18 0.004

215 E Hampden Ave S Dayton St 0.18 0.004

216 N Tower Rd Pena Blvd 0.15 0.003

217 E 56th Ave N Havana St 0.15 0.003

218 E 56th Ave N Quebec St 0.15 0.003

219 E 51st Ave N Peoria St 0.15 0.003

220 W 50th Ave N Lowell Blvd 0.15 0.003

221 N Washington St Interstate 70 0.15 0.003

222 E Stapleton South Dr N Holly St 0.15 0.003

223 W 44th Ave N Irving St 0.15 0.003

224 N Tower Rd E 43rd Ave 0.15 0.003

225 Walnut St 38th St 0.15 0.003

226 N Broadway Blake St 0.15 0.003

227 E 26th Ave N Downing St 0.15 0.003

228 N Speer Blvd Elitch Cir 0.15 0.003

229 E 14th Ave N Logan St 0.15 0.003

230 W 10th Ave N Knox Ct 0.15 0.003

231 E Alameda Ave S Havana St 0.15 0.003

232 E Evans Ave S High St 0.15 0.003

233 N Vasquez Blvd E 52nd Ave 0.12 0.003

234 N Sheridan Blvd W 52nd Ave 0.12 0.003

235 N Federal Blvd Interstate 70 0.12 0.003

236 N Colorado Blvd Interstate 70 0.12 0.003

237 N Colorado Blvd Interstate 70 0.12 0.003

238 N Chambers Rd E 46th Ave 0.12 0.003

239 38th St Arkins Ct 0.12 0.003

240 W 32nd Ave N Sheridan Blvd 0.12 0.003

241 15th St Central St 0.12 0.003

242 19th St Curtis St 0.12 0.003

243 Park Ave E 19th Ave 0.12 0.003

244 N Broadway E 19th Ave 0.12 0.003

245 E 14th Ave N Pearl St 0.12 0.003

246 E 8th Ave N Clarkson St 0.12 0.003

247 N Federal Blvd W 1st Ave 0.12 0.003

248 S Colorado Blvd E Ohio Ave 0.12 0.003

249 Morrison Rd W Kentucky Ave 0.12 0.003

250 E Florida Ave S Holly St 0.12 0.003

251 E 56th Ave Pena Blvd 0.09 0.002

252 N Havana St E 51st Ave 0.09 0.002

253 E 46th Ave N Clayton St 0.09 0.002

254 N Havana St E 45th Ave 0.09 0.002

255 N Havana St Interstate 70 0.09 0.002

256 W 44th Ave N Lowell Blvd 0.09 0.002

283

Rank Intersection Name Front to Side Rate Weighted

257 N Peoria St Interstate 70 0.09 0.002

258 N Federal Blvd W 41st Ave 0.09 0.002

259 W 38th Ave N Tejon St 0.09 0.002

260 N Federal Blvd W 35th Ave 0.09 0.002

261 W 26th Ave N Irving St 0.09 0.002

262 Park Ave W Tremont Pl 0.09 0.002

263 N Yosemite St E 17th Ave 0.09 0.002

264 E Colfax Ave N Elizabeth St 0.09 0.002

265 N Quebec St E 14th Ave 0.09 0.002

266 E 13th Ave N Washington St 0.09 0.002

267 N Colorado Blvd E 12th Ave 0.09 0.002

268 E 6th Ave N Monaco St 0.09 0.002

269 W Alameda Ave S Sheridan Blvd 0.09 0.002

270 N Washington St E 50th Ave 0.06 0.001

271 N Vasquez Blvd N Steele St 0.06 0.001

272 W 46th Ave N Zuni St 0.06 0.001

273 N Sheridan Blvd W 46th Ave 0.06 0.001

274 N Washington St Ringsby Ct 0.06 0.001

275 N Peoria St Interstate 70 0.06 0.001

276 E Smith Rd N Monaco St 0.06 0.001

277 N Colorado Blvd E 40th Ave 0.06 0.001

278 N Lipan St W 38th Ave 0.06 0.001

279 W 38th Ave N Clay St 0.06 0.001

280 W 29th Ave N Irving St 0.06 0.001

281 N Quebec St E 26th Ave 0.06 0.001

282 N Monaco St E 26th Ave 0.06 0.001

283 Glenarm Pl 14th St 0.06 0.001

284 E Alameda Ave S Downing St 0.06 0.001

285 E 56th Ave N Peoria St 0.03 0.001

286 E 53rd Ave N Chambers Rd 0.03 0.001

287 W 52nd Ave N Pecos St 0.03 0.001

288 N Washington St E 51st Ave 0.03 0.001

289 W 48th Ave N Zuni St 0.03 0.001

290 N Pecos St Interstate 70 0.03 0.001

291 E 47th Ave N Dallas St 0.03 0.001

292 N Tennyson St W 46th Ave 0.03 0.001

293 N Quebec St Interstate 70 0.03 0.001

294 N Pecos St W 42nd Ave 0.03 0.001

295 N Steele St E 40th Ave 0.03 0.001

296 N Sheridan Blvd W 41st Ave 0.03 0.001

297 N Downing St Walnut St 0.03 0.001

298 W 38th Ave N Perry St 0.03 0.001

299 W 38th Ave N Navajo St 0.03 0.001

284

Rank Intersection Name Front to Side Rate Weighted

300 N Broadway Larimer St 0.03 0.001

301 19th St Blake St 0.03 0.001

302 Arapahoe St 18th St 0.03 0.001

303 California St 16th St 0.03 0.001

304 N Corona St E 14th Ave 0.03 0.001

305 E 9th Ave N Downing St 0.03 0.001

306 N Sheridan Blvd Interstate 70 0.00 0.000

307 E 28th Ave N York St 0.00 0.000

308 Park Ave W Blake St 0.00 0.000

309 N Monaco St E 17th Ave 0.00 0.000

Note: Intersections highlighted in yellow are referred to current RLC locations