Upload
others
View
14
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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