SR 147 MP 7 TO MP 14 TRAFFIC SAFETY EVALUATION CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA USING THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL AND THE INTERACTIVE HIGHWAY SAFETY DESIGN MODEL

Transcription

1 TRAFFIC SAFETY EVALUATION SR 147 MP 7 TO MP 14 CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA USING THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL AND THE INTERACTIVE HIGHWAY SAFETY DESIGN MODEL Prepared for: Nevada Department of Transportation Safety Engineering Prepared by:

2 TRAFFIC SAFETY EVALUATION FOR SR 147 MP 7 TO MP 14 Prepared for: Nevada Department of Transportation Safety Engineering Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc Las Vegas Boulevard South Suite 32 Las Vegas, Nevada This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley- Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc Safety Capacity Building SR 147-Safety Evaluation Report DRAFT FINAL.docx May, 213 May 213r

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS SR 147 MP 7 TO MP 14 - SAFETY EVALUATION 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Analysis Overview Expected Crash Analysis Benefit Cost Ratio Economic Analysis Results Consideration Conclusions INTRODUCTION STUDY AREA IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS Project Specific Crash Proportions Crash Prediction Results Economic Analysis RESULTS Considerations Recommendations...12 LIST OF FIGURES Figure E1 Vicinity Map...1 Figure E2 Aerial image of project location...2 Figure 1 Crash by severity geocoded along the evaluated corridor...6 Figure 2 HSM Default Crash Severity Distribution versus SR147 Crash Severity Distribution...8 LIST OF TABLES Table E Expected Total Number of Crashes...3 Table E2 Annual Benefits, Annual Costs, and BCR...3 Table 1 Observed and Projected AADT...5 Table 2 Crash Severity and Distribution Table 3 Crash Collision Type Table 4 SPFs for Rural Two-Lane, Two-Way Road...9 Table Expected Total Number of Crashes...1 Table 6 Annual Benefits, Annual Costs, and BCR Safety Capacity Building SR 147-Safety Evaluation Report FINAL.docx May, 213 Page i

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS SR 147 MP 7 TO MP 14 - SAFETY EVALUATION LIST OF APPENDICES A B C D E Project Location and Typical Section Traffic Data IHSDM Predictive Method Results Per Alternative NDOT Cost Estimation Wizard Per Alternative Cost-Benefit Analysis LIST OF ACRONYMS AADT AASHTO BCR CMF CPM CRF FHWA HSIP HSM IHSDM MP NDOT RSA SR Average Annual Daily Traffic American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials Benefit-Cost Ratio Crash Modification Factor Crash Prediction Module Crash Reduction Factor Federal Highway Administration Highway Safety Improvement Project Highway Safety Manual Interactive Highway Safety Design Module Milepost Nevada Department of Transportation Road Safety Audit State Route Safety Capacity Building SR 147-Safety Evaluation Report FINAL.docx May, 213 Page ii

5 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A safety analysis has been performed on State Route (SR) 147, also known as Lake Mead Boulevard, in Clark County, Nevada from MP 7.4 to MP for the 2-year period from 213 to 233. Using the American Association of State & Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Highway Safety Manual (HSM) Predictive Method, expected crash totals were estimated using the Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM) to evaluate and prioritize safety improvement alternatives. Below is a vicinity map of the evaluated roadway and an aerial image with the highway colored in red. Figure E1 Vicinity Map Safety Capacity Building SR 147-Safety Evaluation Report FINAL.docx May, 213 Page 1

6 Figure E2 Aerial image of project location 1.1. Analysis Overview The effect on traffic safety was analyzed for the following improvement alternatives: 1. Add a centerline rumble strip for the length of the project 2. Revise single curve at MP 9 per RSA recommendation (1,7-foot curve), includes shoulder and roadside improvements at location 3. Improving superelevation to bring into compliance with AASHTO recommendations, this work will only include curves that are out of superelevation compliance and improvement will require milling and replacement of pavement 4. Add a climbing lane for westbound traffic from Pabco Road (approx. MP 11.6) to the top of the hill (approx. MP 8.5), includes shoulder and roadside improvements along climbing lane 5. Revise both curves at MP 9 to meet a 6 mph design speed, includes shoulder and roadside improvements at location 6. Widen shoulders to 5-feet and improve roadside conditions for entire length of the project, includes adding shoulder rumble strips. No revision to horizontal and vertical roadway geometry were made Expected Crash Analysis Using the IHSDM to complete the HSM Predictive Method analysis, the safety improvements of each alternative were quantified and compared to the existing conditions of the highway for the Safety Capacity Building SR 147-Safety Evaluation Report FINAL.docx May, 213 Page 2

7 2-year evaluation period. The expected crash totals for the analysis period are summarized in Table E1 below: Table E Expected Total Number of Crashes Existing Conditions Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 CL Rumble Strip Expected Total Number of Crashes RSA Curve at MP 9 Superelevation Improvements 1.3. Benefit Cost Ratio Economic Analysis Climbing Lane The following Benefit-Cost Ratios (BCR) found in Table E2 were calculated using a project specific severity distribution since the HSM standard distribution for crash severity, as shown in Table 1-3 of the HSM, is not believed to be representative of the project corridor. Costs were estimated using the NDOT Project Estimation Wizard for each alternative. Table E2 Annual Benefits, Annual Costs, and BCR New Reverse Curve at MP 9 Widen Shoulder to 5' Total Reduction in Total Crashes over Existing N/A Conditions Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) N/A 6% 5% 1% 16% 6% 27% Total Alternative Cost Total Annual Benefit including 2% Growth per year Total Annualized Cost Benefit-Cost Ratio Average Annual Net Return Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 CL Rumble Strip RSA Curve at MP 9 Superelevation Improvements Climbing Lane New Reverse Curve at MP 9 Widen Shoulder to 5' $65,693 $1,474,74 $945,31 $5,696,473 $2,357,871 $12,126,998 $27,273 $228,88 $52,956 $711,44 $289,258 $1,235,964 $9,518 $16,429 $69,998 $396,797 $167,172 $839, $26,755 $122,38 ($17,43) $314,67 $122,86 $396, Safety Capacity Building SR 147-Safety Evaluation Report FINAL.docx May, 213 Page 3

8 1.4. Results The BCRs above show that all but one alternative exceeds the general minimum BCR of 1.. The IHSDM estimates approximately 9 crashes over 2-year period. The relatively low number of crashes has a high correlation with low AADT on SR 147. The AADT has decreased to approximately 1,5 vpd and 1, vpd for the two different count locations over the past few years. The growth of traffic on the corridor is calculated to increase at a 2.42% annually over the next 2 years. Due to the severity of the crashes, for this project, the benefits outweigh the costs. Alternative 1 has already been constructed. Alternatives 2, 4, 5, and 6 are all recommended for construction on SR 147 to improve safety. Selection of alternatives will be restricted to funds available for improvement Consideration Other considerations not contained in the HSM Predictive Method analysis should be taken into account by decision makers in selecting improvement alternatives Conclusions The predictive method and BCRs are effective tools to evaluate the future effects of safety improvements along SR 147. NDOT should use results contained within this report, other nonmonetary considerations, and project funding/budget to determine how to proceed and improve the safety of SR Safety Capacity Building SR 147-Safety Evaluation Report FINAL.docx May, 213 Page 4

9 2. INTRODUCTION The Predictive Method in Part C of the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual (HSM) is an analysis tool with multiple purposes. The Predictive Method provides a methodology to estimate the predicted and/or expected average crash frequency of a facility with known characteristics. Predicted crash rates are derived when observed crash data is not considered in the analysis. Expected crash rates are derived when observed crash data is weighted using Empirical Bayes. The method can be used to evaluate and compare crash frequencies of existing facilities under current or future traffic volumes and estimate the effectiveness of proposed improvements to an existing facility under past or future traffic volumes prior to the implementation of those improvements. The Predictive Method has been applied to SR 147 from MP 7.4 to MP to evaluate the safety effectiveness of six proposed roadway improvement alternatives. Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM) software developed by the FHWA was used to implement the Predictive Method. The IHSDM is a suite of software analysis tools for evaluating safety and operational effects of geometric design decisions on highways.. IHSDM currently includes six evaluation modules. The Crash Prediction Module (CPM) is a faithful implementation of the HSM Part C, a tool that estimates the frequency and severity of crashes, given a highway s geometric design and traffic characteristics, was used in this analysis. 3. STUDY AREA State Route 147 (SR 147), also known as Lake Mead Boulevard, MP 7.4 to is a rural roadway located in Clark County, Nevada, within the NDOT District I. SR 147, through these limits, is classified as a rural major collector. The roadway consists of one general purpose lane in both the westbound and eastbound directions. The travel lanes are 12 feet wide with a 1-foot wide shoulder. No raised median, sidewalk, or curb/gutter is present. The typical section for the study area is 26 feet in total width. Recently the posted speed was raised 5 mph to 55 mph from MP 7 to MP 9 and to 6 mph from MP 9 to MP 14. For the purpose of this study, the design speed was determined to be 6 mph and 65 mph respectively which is 5 mph higher than the recently revised higher posted speed limit. The Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for SR 147 was available at two count stations in the project area. The first is.4 miles east of Los Feliz Street (approximate milepost 7.). The second is located at a count station.2 miles north of the intersection with Northshore Road. NDOT Traffic division was consulted to predict the future traffic volumes for the corridor and they predicted a growth rate of 2.42% for each year for the 2-year project horizon. The existing traffic data and the predicted traffic data used for the analysis are found in Table 1. The IHDSM takes into account all of the AADT available when calculating the expected crash data and interpolating the AADT for missing years. Table 1 Observed and Projected AADT SR 147 Observed 211 AADT Projected 233 AADT (vpd) (vpd) MP 7.4 to MP ,5 2,478 MP 11.6 to MP 7.4 1, 1, Safety Capacity Building SR 147-Safety Evaluation Report FINAL.docx May, 213 Page 5

10 Historical crash data was used for the analysis within the project limits for the seven-year period of 24 to 21. The subsequent tables summarize the total number of crashes, as well as the severity and manner of collision. Table 2 Crash Severity and Distribution Severity Type Number of Crashes Fatal 6 Injury A 4 Injury B 6 Injury C 6 PDO 13 Total 35 Table 3 Crash Collision Type Number of Collision Type Crashes Non-Collision 28 Angle 2 Rear End 1 Head On 4 Total 35 The crashes were geocoded to better determine where safety improvements would be more effective. Below is a figure that shows the crash severity geocoded along the corridor. Figure 1 Crash by severity geocoded along the evaluated corridor Safety Capacity Building SR 147-Safety Evaluation Report FINAL.docx May, 213 Page 6

11 This section of highway has a particularly high level of fatalities for the average annual daily traffic volumes. With the low traffic volumes mentioned previously, there have been 35 crashes over the last five years of reported crashes. Out of the 35 crashes, six of these have been fatal. Four of the fatal crashes have occurred at the hair pin curve near MP 9 4. IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS Alternatives were selected from the RSA report done by Kimley-Horn and Associates in the summer of 211, the scoping document for the corridor completed by HDR August 212, and from the Task Force meetings for the NDOT Highway Safety Manual Implementation Plan. The alternatives are as follows 1. Add a centerline rumble strip for the length of the project 2. Revise single curve at MP 9 per RSA recommendation (1,7-foot curve), includes shoulder and roadside improvements at location 3. Improving superelevation to bring into compliance with AASHTO recommendations, this work will only include curves that are out of superelevation compliance and improvement will require milling and replacement of pavement 4. Add a climbing lane for westbound traffic from Pabco Road (approx. MP 11.6) to the top of the hill (approx. MP 8.5), includes shoulder and roadside improvements along climbing lane 5. Revise both curves at MP 9 to meet a 6 mph design speed, includes shoulder and roadside improvements at location 6. Widen shoulders to 5-feet and improve roadside conditions for entire length of the project, includes adding shoulder rumble strips. No revision to horizontal and vertical roadway geometry were made. Each alterative was analyzed independently of the other alternatives for the purpose of developing a BCR Project Specific Crash Proportions The HSM uses the default crash distribution for crash severity level on rural two-lane roadway segments found in Table 1-3 of the HSM. This distribution was based on highway safety information system data for Washington State from The observed distributions of crash severity within the SR 147 project area were much different than the default HSM values. Below, in Figure 4, the distribution of crashes by severity is shown for the project versus the default HSM values. The HSM recommends updating the default distribution values as part of the calibration process found in the Appendix of the HSM. Currently the State of Nevada is processing data to calibrate the predictive method for local crashes. For the purpose of this report and case study, a project specific crash severity distribution was used for expected crash severity predictions Safety Capacity Building SR 147-Safety Evaluation Report FINAL.docx May, 213 Page 7

12 Figure 2 HSM Default Crash Severity Distribution versus SR147 Crash Severity Distribution 4.2. Crash Prediction Results The implementation of the Predictive Method requires the development of three main components: a Safety Performance Function (SPF), Crash Modification Factors (CMFs), and a local calibration factor (C). The SPF uses roadway geometry, roadway characteristics and traffic conditions to determine a base condition for a particular category of highway. For the purpose of this study, SR 147 falls under the category of a rural two-lane, two-way road as defined in Chapter 1 of Part C of the HSM. CMFs are then applied to the SPF to create a site specific function that more accurately reflects the existing and proposed conditions of the roadway. Finally, a calibration factor can be applied to account for the jurisdictional/regional variations in climate, driver populations, etc. At the time of this study, NDOT had not developed a local calibration factor. As a result, a local calibration factor was not applied. Table 4 shows the base parameters of the SPF for a Rural Two-lane, Two-way Road along with the parameters used in developing the SPF for the existing and proposed conditions Safety Capacity Building SR 147-Safety Evaluation Report FINAL.docx May, 213 Page 8

13 Roadway Elements Table 4 SPFs for Rural Two-Lane, Two-Way Road Expected Total Number of Crashes Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6* New Reverse Widen CL Rumble RSA Curve at Superelevati Climbing Curve at MP Shoulder to Strip MP 9 on Impr. Lane 9 5' Lane Width 12-foot 12-foot 12-foot 12-foot 12-foot 12-foot 12-foot 12-foot 5-foot at 5-foot at 5-foot at Shoulder impr. and 1 - impr. and 1 - impr. and 1-6-foot 1-foot 1-foot 1-foot Width foot foot foot 5-foot elsewhere elsewhere elsewhere Shoulder Type Paved Paved Paved Paved Paved Paved Paved Paved Roadside Hazard Rating Driveway Density Horizontal Curves: length, radius, and presence or absence of spiral Horizontal Curve Superelevati on HSM Base Condition 3 Varies (3 to 5) Varies (3 to 5) Varies (2 to 5) Varies (3 to 5) Varies (3 to 5) Varies (2 to 3) 5 per mile 3 per mile 3 per mile 3 per mile 3 per mile 3 per mile 3 per mile 3 per mile None Per as-builts Per as-builts None Grades 3% Existing Condition Per field measuremen ts Varies up to 7.5% per survey Per field measuremen ts Varies up to 7.5% per survey 17 foot curve, per asbuilts elsewhere Per AASHTO Std at impr., Per field measuremen ts elsewhere Varies up to 7.5% per survey Per as-builts Per AASHTO Std. Varies up to 7.5% per survey Per as-builts Per field measuremen ts Varies up to 7.5% per survey A 12-foot reverse curve, per asbuilts elsewhere Per AASHTO Std at impr., Per field measuremen ts elsewhere Varies up to 7.5% per survey Utilizing the IHSDM Software and the parameters listed above, the Predictive Method was applied to each alternative to calculate a predicted total number of crashes for the study period of 213 to 233. An expected total number of crashes was calculated by including site specific crash data in the analysis using the Empirical Bays method. This is also accomplished in the IHSDM. Feedback was given from NDOT that a common safety enhancement to widening the shoulder for the state roadways rural two lane roadways has been installing shoulder rumble strips. 2 Per as-builts Per field measuremen ts Varies up to 7.5% per survey Centerline Rumble Strip None None Present None None None None None Passing Lanes None None None None None Climbing None None Two-way left turn lanes None None None None None None None None Lighting None None None None None None None None Automated Speed Enforcement None None None None None None None None * Shoulder rumble strips were added into this alternative evaluation based on feedback from the Task Force meeting Safety Capacity Building SR 147-Safety Evaluation Report FINAL.docx May, 213 Page 9

14 Shoulder rumble strips are not included as a CMF in the predictive method for rural two lane roadways at this time. An extra CMF for shoulder rumble strips was applied to the evaluation of Alterative 6 before the weighting of observed crashes through Emperical Bays. The shoulder rumble strips have a CMF of.84 according to the NCHRP Report 641. The CMF was found on the CMF Clearing house website, Table Expected Total Number of Crashes Existing Conditions The expected total number of crashes over the 2-year analysis period for the existing condition is 9.17 crashes, which equates to a crash frequency of approximately 4.5 crashes per year. The proposed improvements reduced the expected number of crashes by the number of crashes reduced and corresponding Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs) shown in the bottom two rows of Table 5 respectively Economic Analysis Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 CL Rumble Strip Expected Total Number of Crashes RSA Curve at MP 9 Superelevation Improvements Climbing Lane New Reverse Curve at MP 9 Widen Shoulder to 5' Total Reduction in Total Crashes over Existing N/A Conditions Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) N/A 6% 5% 1% 16% 6% 27% A Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) economic analysis was performed in order to determine the alternative that provides the most safety benefit with respect to cost. Project costs were estimated using the NDOT Estimating Wizard which is useful in providing scoping-level cost estimates for construction. Estimate calculations can be found in Appendix D. The expected crash results from the predictive analysis were multiplied by the project severity distribution to determine the expected number of crashes by severity for the 2-year period. Project benefits were calculated by multiplying the number of crashes saved by for each alternative by the Nevada 212 societal cost of crashes and then annualized. For the sole purpose of comparing alternatives, a 2% rate of growth, a current interest rate of 3.25%, and an annual maintenance cost of $5, was assumed for each alternative. Calculations for the BCR can be found in Appendix E. Table 6 shows the benefits and costs of each alternative; the corresponding BCRs over 1. are deemed cost effective Safety Capacity Building SR 147-Safety Evaluation Report FINAL.docx May, 213 Page 1

15 Table 6 Annual Benefits, Annual Costs, and BCR Total Alternative Cost Total Annual Benefit including 2% Growth per year Total Annualized Cost Benefit-Cost Ratio Average Annual Net Return Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 CL Rumble Strip RSA Curve at MP 9 Superelevation Improvements Climbing Lane New Reverse Curve at MP 9 Widen Shoulder to 5' $65,693 $1,474,74 $945,31 $5,696,473 $2,357,871 $12,126,998 $27,273 $228,88 $52,956 $711,44 $289,258 $1,235,964 $9,518 $16,429 $69,998 $396,797 $167,172 $839, $26,755 $122,38 ($17,43) $314,67 $122,86 $396, RESULTS The BCRs above show that all but Alternative 3 exceed the general minimum BCR of 1.. Alternative 3 could be worth the cost if the pavement were being rehabilitated through a previously scheduled 3R project however it is not cost effective as a standalone safety improvement project. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requires a ratio of 1. or higher in order for a project to be eligible for Highway Safety Improvement Project (HSIP) funding. The benefit far outweighs the cost for Alternative 1 due to the very low implementation cost of a centerline rumble strip and in fact Alternative 1 has already been constructed when this analysis was completed. The six alternatives have been developed independently and therefore they can be, to some degree, combined together to help decision makers decide on how to make best use of funds available for improvement of the corridor. Depending on the amount of available funds combining Alternative 2 and 4 would be the most cost effective improvements. Constructing Alternatives 2 and 4 would cost approximately $7,171,177 and would reduce crashes by 21%. If more funds were available, reconstructing the entire hair-pin curve may be desirable. Alternatives 4 and 5 would cost approximately $8,54,343 and reduce crashes by 22% Considerations There may also be other non-monetary, non-safety considerations and data or preferences on how the corridor should be improved. Factors such as bicycle users, pedestrian users, aesthetics, and environmental concerns could be considered. Such factors and discussion need to take place among the decision makers and stake holders of the improvement corridor. Other items not considered in the predictive method or this analysis but may have impact to future results of safety are signing and striping improvements along the corridor Safety Capacity Building SR 147-Safety Evaluation Report FINAL.docx May, 213 Page 11

16 5.2. Recommendations The predictive method and BCRs are effective tools to evaluate the future effects of safety improvements along SR 147. NDOT should use results contained within this report, other nonmonetary considerations, and project funding/budget to determine how to proceed and improve the safety of SR 147. FOR FULL APPENDICES SEE PDF VERSION Safety Capacity Building SR 147-Safety Evaluation Report FINAL.docx May, 213 Page 12

17 APPENDIX A PROJECT LOCATION AND TYPICAL SECTION Safety Capacity Building SR 147-Safety Evaluation Report FINAL.docx May, 213 APPENDIX

18 Project Location: Outside Las Vegas Nevada Safety Capacity Building SR 147-Safety Evaluation Report FINAL.docx May, 213 APPENDIX

19 Safety Capacity Building SR 147-Safety Evaluation Report FINAL.docx May, 213 APPENDIX

20 APPENDIX B TRAFFIC DATA Safety Capacity Building SR 147-Safety Evaluation Report FINAL.docx May, 213 APPENDIX

21 From: Travis, Randy D [mailto:rtravis@dot.state.nv.us] Sent: Thursday, December 2, :29 PM To: Colety, Mike Cc: Mammen, Ken W; Ceragioli, Jim R; Mosley, Michael; Wang, Xuan; Hong, Hoang Subject: RE: SR 147- Projected AADT for 233 Mike, Here is the best we could do and feel comfortable (see attached). I used the 212 volume of 1, AADT and the most consistent higher volume 1,65 AADT (prior to the economic crash) at site 218 and came up with a growth rate. I looked at data all the way back to 1988 at that site. I think 1,65 is the highest volume we will see there for some time. They have closed one of the marinas in that area of the lake and combined it with another marina further south closer to US93. I believe this has pulled some of the volume off of Lake Mead. I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any questions. Happy Holidays. Randy Travis Traffic Information Chief Nevada Department of Transportation 1263 S. Stewart St. Carson City, NV (775) (775) cell (775) fax Safety Capacity Building SR 147-Safety Evaluation Report FINAL.docx May, 213 APPENDIX

22 Lake Mead Blvd. (SR-147),.2 mi. N of the road to Calville Bay Calculated Growth Rate: 2.42% Volume Current Year Future Year Future Year Future Year Future Year Future Year Future Year Future Year Future Year Future Year Future Year Future Year Future Year Future Year Future Year Future Year Future Year Future Year Future Year Future Year Future Year Future Year Future Year Future Year Future Year Future Year Safety Capacity Building SR 147-Safety Evaluation Report FINAL.docx May, 213 APPENDIX

23 APPENDIX C IHSDM PREDICTIVE METHOD RESULTS PER ALTERNATIVE Safety Capacity Building SR 147-Safety Evaluation Report FINAL.docx May, 213 APPENDIX

24 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model January 21, 213

25 Disclaimer The Interactive Highway Design Model (IHSDM) software is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its content or use thereof. This document does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and manufacturers' names may appear in this software and documentation only because they are considered essential to the objective of the software. Limited Warranty and Limitations of Remedies This software product is provided "as-is," without warranty of any kind-either expressed or implied (but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose). The FHWA do not warrant that the functions contained in the software will meet the end-user's requirements or that the operation of the software will be uninterrupted and error-free. Under no circumstances will the FHWA be liable to the end-user for any damages or claimed lost profits, lost savings, or other incidental or consequential damages rising out of the use or inability to use the software (even if these organizations have been advised of the possibility of such damages), or for any claim by any other party. Notice The use of the IHSDM software is being done strictly on a voluntary basis. In exchange for provision of IHSDM, the user agrees that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation and any other agency of the Federal Government shall not be responsible for any errors, damage or other liability that may result from any and all use of the software, including installation and testing of the software. The user further agrees to hold the FHWA and the Federal Government harmless from any resulting liability. The user agrees that this hold harmless provision shall flow to any person to whom or any entity to which the user provides the IHSDM software. It is the user's full responsibility to inform any person to whom or any entity to which it provides the IHSDM software of this hold harmless provision.

26 List of Figures Table of Contents Report Overview Section 1 Evaluation List of Tables Table Observed Crash Summary (Section Table Evaluation Highway - Homogeneous Segments (Section Table Crash History Highway - Homogeneous Segments (Section Table Expected Crash Rates and Frequencies (Section Table Expected Crash Frequencies and Rates by Highway Segment (Section Table Expected Crash Frequencies and Rates by Horizontal Design Element (Section Table Expected Crash Type Distribution (Section List of Figures Figure Crash Prediction Summary (Section Interactive Highway Safety Design Model iii

27 List of Figures iv Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

28 Section 1 Evaluation Report Overview Report Generated: Jan 21, 213 9:12 AM Report Template: System: Multi-Page [System] (mlcpm2, Aug 24, 212 8:55 AM) Evaluation Date: Thu Dec 2 15:24:34 PST 212 IHSDM Version: v7..1 (Mar 14, 212) Crash Prediction Module: v2.3. (Sep 28, 21 User Name: michael.mosley Organization Name: Kimley-Horn and Associates Phone: michael.mosley@kimley-horn.com Project Title: SR 147 Assessment Project Comment: Created using wizard Project Unit System: U.S. Customary Highway Title: Alignment SR 147- as builts & Scoping Doc Highway Comment: Copied from Alignment SR 147- as builts (Imported) Highway Version: 4 Evaluation Title: FINAL CPM Evaluation Comment: Created Thu Dec 2 15:2:5 PST 212 Minimum Station: 1+. Maximum Station: Policy for Superelevation: AASHTO 211 U.S. Customary Calibration: HSM Configuration Crash Distribution: HSM Configuration Model/CMF: HSM Configuration Empirical-Bayes Analysis: Site-Specific Highway with Crash History: Alignment SR 147- as builts & Scoping Doc Highway with Crash History Comment: Copied from Alignment SR 147- as builts (Imported) Highway with Crash History Version: 4 First Year of Analysis: 213 Last Year of Analysis: 232 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 1

29 Section 1 Evaluation Section 1 Evaluation Section: Section 1 Evaluation Start Location: 1+. Evaluation End Location: Area Type: Rural Functional Class: Collector Type of Alignment: Undivided, Two Lane Model Category: Rural, Two Lane Calibration Factor: 2U=1.; Figure 1. Crash Prediction Summary (Section 2 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

30 Section 1 Evaluation Table 1. Observed Crash Summary (Section Year Total Crashes FI Crashes FI no/c Crashes PDO Crashes All Years Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 3

31 Section 1 Evaluation Table 2. Evaluation Highway - Homogeneous Segments (Section Seg. No. Typ e Start Location 1 2U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U End Location Length Lengt (ft) h(mi) AADT ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; Left Right Lane Lane Widt Widt h (ft) h (ft) Left Shoulder Width (ft) Right Shoulder Width (ft) Grad e (%) Driveway Density (driveway s/mi) Hazar d Rating Centerline Rumble Strip Passing TWL Lanes T Lane Lighting false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false Automated Speed Radius Superelevation Enforcement (ft) (%) Adverse Design Speed (mph) 5,. 1.1 false 6 5,. 1.1 false 6 12,. 12,. 12,. 12,. 12,. 12,..3 false 6.3 false 6.3 false 6.3 false 6.3 false 6.3 false 6 4 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

32 Section 1 Evaluation Seg. No. Typ e Start Location 24 2U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U End Location Length Lengt (ft) h(mi) AADT ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; Left Right Lane Lane Widt Widt h (ft) h (ft) Left Shoulder Width (ft) Right Shoulder Width (ft) Grad e (%) Driveway Density (driveway s/mi) Hazar d Rating Centerline Rumble Strip Passing TWL Lanes T Lane Lighting Automated Speed Radius Superelevation Enforcement (ft) (%) Adverse Design Speed (mph) false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false 2, false 6 2, false 6 2, false 6 2, false 6 1, false 65 2, false 65 2, false 65 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 5

33 Section 1 Evaluation Seg. No. Typ e Start Location 49 2U U U U U U U End Location Length Lengt (ft) h(mi) 56 2U , U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U AADT ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211;.27 1,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; ,9; 221: 1,944; 222: 1,989; 223: 2,33; 224: 2,77; 225: 2,122; 226: 2,166; 227: 2,211; 213: 1,59; 214: 1,88; 215: 1,118; 216: 1,148; 217: 1,177; 218: 1,27; 219: 1,237; 22: ,266; 221: 1,296; 222: 1,326; 223: 1,355; 224: 1,385; 225: 1,414; 226: 1,444; 227: 1,474; 228: 1,53; 229: 1,533; 23: 1,563; 231: 1,592; 232: 1, : 1,59; 214: 1,88; 215: 1,118; 216: 1,148; 217: 1,177; 218: 1,27; 219: 1,237; 22: ,266; 221: 1,296; 222: 1,326; 223: 1,355; 224: 1,385; 225: 1,414; 226: 1,444; 227: 1,474; 228: 1,53; 229: 1,533; 23: 1,563; 231: 1,592; 232: 1, : 1,59; 214: 1,88; 215: 1,118; 216: 1,148; 217: 1,177; 218: 1,27; 219: 1,237; 22: ,266; 221: 1,296; 222: 1,326; 223: 1,355; 224: 1,385; 225: 1,414; 226: 1,444; 227: 1,474; 228: 1,53; 229: 1,533; 23: 1,563; 231: 1,592; 232: 1, : 1,59; 214: 1,88; 215: 1,118; 216: 1,148; 217: 1,177; 218: 1,27; 219: 1,237; 22: ,266; 221: 1,296; 222: 1,326; 223: 1,355; 224: 1,385; 225: 1,414; 226: 1,444; 227: 1,474; 228: 1,53; 229: 1,533; 23: 1,563; 231: 1,592; 232: 1, : 1,59; 214: 1,88; 215: 1,118; 216: 1,148; 217: 1,177; 218: 1,27; 219: 1,237; 22: ,266; 221: 1,296; 222: 1,326; 223: 1,355; 224: 1,385; 225: 1,414; 226: 1,444; 227: 1,474; 228: 1,53; 229: 1,533; 23: 1,563; 231: 1,592; 232: 1, : 1,59; 214: 1,88; 215: 1,118; 216: 1,148; 217: 1,177; 218: 1,27; 219: 1,237; 22: ,266; 221: 1,296; 222: 1,326; 223: 1,355; 224: 1,385; 225: 1,414; 226: 1,444; 227: 1,474; 228: 1,53; 229: 1,533; 23: 1,563; 231: 1,592; 232: 1, : 1,59; 214: 1,88; 215: 1,118; 216: 1,148; 217: 1,177; 218: 1,27; 219: 1,237; 22: ,266; 221: 1,296; 222: 1,326; 223: 1,355; 224: 1,385; 225: 1,414; 226: 1,444; 227: 1,474; 228: 1,53; 229: 1,533; 23: 1,563; 231: 1,592; 232: 1, : 1,59; 214: 1,88; 215: 1,118; 216: 1,148; 217: 1,177; 218: 1,27; 219: 1,237; 22: ,266; 221: 1,296; 222: 1,326; 223: 1,355; 224: 1,385; 225: 1,414; 226: 1,444; 227: 1,474; 228: 1,53; 229: 1,533; 23: 1,563; 231: 1,592; 232: 1, : 1,59; 214: 1,88; 215: 1,118; 216: 1,148; 217: 1,177; 218: 1,27; 219: 1,237; 22: ,266; 221: 1,296; 222: 1,326; 223: 1,355; 224: 1,385; 225: 1,414; 226: 1,444; 227: 1,474; 228: 1,53; 229: 1,533; 23: 1,563; 231: 1,592; 232: 1, : 1,59; 214: 1,88; 215: 1,118; 216: 1,148; 217: 1,177; 218: 1,27; 219: 1,237; 22: ,266; 221: 1,296; 222: 1,326; 223: 1,355; 224: 1,385; 225: 1,414; 226: 1,444; 227: 1,474; 228: 1,53; 229: 1,533; 23: 1,563; 231: 1,592; 232: 1, : 1,59; 214: 1,88; 215: 1,118; 216: 1,148; 217: 1,177; 218: 1,27; 219: 1,237; 22: ,266; 221: 1,296; 222: 1,326; 223: 1,355; 224: 1,385; 225: 1,414; 226: 1,444; 227: 1,474; 228: 1,53; 229: 1,533; 23: 1,563; 231: 1,592; 232: 1, : 1,59; 214: 1,88; 215: 1,118; 216: 1,148; 217: 1,177; 218: 1,27; 219: 1,237; 22: ,266; 221: 1,296; 222: 1,326; 223: 1,355; 224: 1,385; 225: 1,414; 226: 1,444; 227: 1,474; 228: 1,53; 229: 1,533; 23: 1,563; 231: 1,592; 232: 1, : 1,59; 214: 1,88; 215: 1,118; 216: 1,148; 217: 1,177; 218: 1,27; 219: 1,237; 22: ,266; 221: 1,296; 222: 1,326; 223: 1,355; 224: 1,385; 225: 1,414; 226: 1,444; 227: 1,474; 228: 1,53; 229: 1,533; 23: 1,563; 231: 1,592; 232: 1, : 1,59; 214: 1,88; 215: 1,118; 216: 1,148; 217: 1,177; 218: 1,27; 219: 1,237; 22: ,266; 221: 1,296; 222: 1,326; 223: 1,355; 224: 1,385; 225: 1,414; 226: 1,444; 227: 1,474; 228: 1,53; 229: 1,533; 23: 1,563; 231: 1,592; 232: 1,622 Left Right Lane Lane Widt Widt h (ft) h (ft) Left Shoulder Width (ft) Right Shoulder Width (ft) Grad e (%) Driveway Density (driveway s/mi) Hazar d Rating Centerline Rumble Strip Passing TWL Lanes T Lane Lighting false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false Automated Speed Radius Superelevation Enforcement (ft) (%) Adverse Design Speed (mph) 1, false 65 1, false 65 2, false 65 2, false 65 4, false 65 4, false 65 2,. 2. true 65 3, false 65 2, false 65 4,. 3.2 false 65 6 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

34 Section 1 Evaluation Seg. No. Typ e Start Location 74 2U U U U U End Location Length Lengt (ft) h(mi) 79 2U , U , U U U U U U U U U AADT 213: 1,59; 214: 1,88; 215: 1,118; 216: 1,148; 217: 1,177; 218: 1,27; 219: 1,237; 22: ,266; 221: 1,296; 222: 1,326; 223: 1,355; 224: 1,385; 225: 1,414; 226: 1,444; 227: 1,474; 228: 1,53; 229: 1,533; 23: 1,563; 231: 1,592; 232: 1, : 1,59; 214: 1,88; 215: 1,118; 216: 1,148; 217: 1,177; 218: 1,27; 219: 1,237; 22: ,266; 221: 1,296; 222: 1,326; 223: 1,355; 224: 1,385; 225: 1,414; 226: 1,444; 227: 1,474; 228: 1,53; 229: 1,533; 23: 1,563; 231: 1,592; 232: 1, : 1,59; 214: 1,88; 215: 1,118; 216: 1,148; 217: 1,177; 218: 1,27; 219: 1,237; 22: ,266; 221: 1,296; 222: 1,326; 223: 1,355; 224: 1,385; 225: 1,414; 226: 1,444; 227: 1,474; 228: 1,53; 229: 1,533; 23: 1,563; 231: 1,592; 232: 1, : 1,59; 214: 1,88; 215: 1,118; 216: 1,148; 217: 1,177; 218: 1,27; 219: 1,237; 22: ,266; 221: 1,296; 222: 1,326; 223: 1,355; 224: 1,385; 225: 1,414; 226: 1,444; 227: 1,474; 228: 1,53; 229: 1,533; 23: 1,563; 231: 1,592; 232: 1, : 1,59; 214: 1,88; 215: 1,118; 216: 1,148; 217: 1,177; 218: 1,27; 219: 1,237; 22: ,266; 221: 1,296; 222: 1,326; 223: 1,355; 224: 1,385; 225: 1,414; 226: 1,444; 227: 1,474; 228: 1,53; 229: 1,533; 23: 1,563; 231: 1,592; 232: 1, : 1,59; 214: 1,88; 215: 1,118; 216: 1,148; 217: 1,177; 218: 1,27; 219: 1,237; 22: ,266; 221: 1,296; 222: 1,326; 223: 1,355; 224: 1,385; 225: 1,414; 226: 1,444; 227: 1,474; 228: 1,53; 229: 1,533; 23: 1,563; 231: 1,592; 232: 1, : 1,59; 214: 1,88; 215: 1,118; 216: 1,148; 217: 1,177; 218: 1,27; 219: 1,237; 22: ,266; 221: 1,296; 222: 1,326; 223: 1,355; 224: 1,385; 225: 1,414; 226: 1,444; 227: 1,474; 228: 1,53; 229: 1,533; 23: 1,563; 231: 1,592; 232: 1, : 1,59; 214: 1,88; 215: 1,118; 216: 1,148; 217: 1,177; 218: 1,27; 219: 1,237; 22: ,266; 221: 1,296; 222: 1,326; 223: 1,355; 224: 1,385; 225: 1,414; 226: 1,444; 227: 1,474; 228: 1,53; 229: 1,533; 23: 1,563; 231: 1,592; 232: 1, : 1,59; 214: 1,88; 215: 1,118; 216: 1,148; 217: 1,177; 218: 1,27; 219: 1,237; 22: ,266; 221: 1,296; 222: 1,326; 223: 1,355; 224: 1,385; 225: 1,414; 226: 1,444; 227: 1,474; 228: 1,53; 229: 1,533; 23: 1,563; 231: 1,592; 232: 1, : 1,59; 214: 1,88; 215: 1,118; 216: 1,148; 217: 1,177; 218: 1,27; 219: 1,237; 22: ,266; 221: 1,296; 222: 1,326; 223: 1,355; 224: 1,385; 225: 1,414; 226: 1,444; 227: 1,474; 228: 1,53; 229: 1,533; 23: 1,563; 231: 1,592; 232: 1, : 1,59; 214: 1,88; 215: 1,118; 216: 1,148; 217: 1,177; 218: 1,27; 219: 1,237; 22: ,266; 221: 1,296; 222: 1,326; 223: 1,355; 224: 1,385; 225: 1,414; 226: 1,444; 227: 1,474; 228: 1,53; 229: 1,533; 23: 1,563; 231: 1,592; 232: 1, : 1,59; 214: 1,88; 215: 1,118; 216: 1,148; 217: 1,177; 218: 1,27; 219: 1,237; 22: ,266; 221: 1,296; 222: 1,326; 223: 1,355; 224: 1,385; 225: 1,414; 226: 1,444; 227: 1,474; 228: 1,53; 229: 1,533; 23: 1,563; 231: 1,592; 232: 1, : 1,59; 214: 1,88; 215: 1,118; 216: 1,148; 217: 1,177; 218: 1,27; 219: 1,237; 22: ,266; 221: 1,296; 222: 1,326; 223: 1,355; 224: 1,385; 225: 1,414; 226: 1,444; 227: 1,474; 228: 1,53; 229: 1,533; 23: 1,563; 231: 1,592; 232: 1, : 1,59; 214: 1,88; 215: 1,118; 216: 1,148; 217: 1,177; 218: 1,27; 219: 1,237; 22: ,266; 221: 1,296; 222: 1,326; 223: 1,355; 224: 1,385; 225: 1,414; 226: 1,444; 227: 1,474; 228: 1,53; 229: 1,533; 23: 1,563; 231: 1,592; 232: 1, : 1,59; 214: 1,88; 215: 1,118; 216: 1,148; 217: 1,177; 218: 1,27; 219: 1,237; 22: ,266; 221: 1,296; 222: 1,326; 223: 1,355; 224: 1,385; 225: 1,414; 226: 1,444; 227: 1,474; 228: 1,53; 229: 1,533; 23: 1,563; 231: 1,592; 232: 1, : 1,59; 214: 1,88; 215: 1,118; 216: 1,148; 217: 1,177; 218: 1,27; 219: 1,237; 22: ,266; 221: 1,296; 222: 1,326; 223: 1,355; 224: 1,385; 225: 1,414; 226: 1,444; 227: 1,474; 228: 1,53; 229: 1,533; 23: 1,563; 231: 1,592; 232: 1,622 Left Right Lane Lane Widt Widt h (ft) h (ft) Left Shoulder Width (ft) Right Shoulder Width (ft) Grad e (%) Driveway Density (driveway s/mi) Hazar d Rating Centerline Rumble Strip Passing TWL Lanes T Lane Lighting false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false false Automated Speed Radius Superelevation Enforcement (ft) (%) Adverse Design Speed (mph) 4,. 3.2 false 65 1, false 65 1, false 65 1, false 65 4,. 6. false 65 4,. 6. false 65 2, false 65 2, false 65 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 7