Lighting Justification Report

Transcription

1 Lighting Justification Report SR 847 / NW 47th Avenue Project Development & Environment Study From SR 860/NW 183rd Street to Premier Parkway County: Miami-Dade and Broward Efficient Transportation Decision Making Number: Financial Management Number: Federal Aid Project: U November 2013

2

3 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION... 1 EXISTING LIGHTING CONDITIONS... 1 AASHTO WARRANTS... 1 ANALYSIS OF THE HIGHWAY LIGHTING JUSTIFICATION... 2 A. Number of Poles, Luminaires, and Wattage... 2 B. Night Accident Rate Unlighted... 3 C. Average Crash Cost... 3 D. Construction Cost per Pole... 3 E. Electrical Energy Cost... 4 F. Interest Rate... 4 G. Accident (Crash) Reduction Factor... 4 H. Annual Maintenance Cost Per Luminaire... 4 CALCULATION OF BENEFIT-COST RATIO... 5 CONCLUSIONS... 5 APPENDICES FDOT MUTS Chapter 15 Highway Lighting Justification Procedure...Appendix A FDOT Crash Data...Appendix B State Safety Office Bulletin Appendix C Cost Estimate per Light Pole...Appendix D Photometric Analysis... Appendix E i Lighting Justification Report

4 SR 847 (NW 47 th Avenue) NW 183 rd Street to Premier Parkway FPID No INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to outline the warrants and justification of Highway Lighting for State Road 847 (SR 847) / NW 47 th Avenue from NW 183 rd Street (MP 0.00) to Premier Parkway, located in northern Miami-Dade and southern Broward Counties. The project length is approximately 2.3 miles. The lighting justification is for the proposed future widening of SR 847 from two-lane undivided to four-lane divided urban minor arterial with median width varying from 16.5 ft to 26 ft. The Highway Lighting warranting conditions will be those set forth by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and shall be used for the purpose of establishing a basis on which lighting may be justified. These warrants will be referenced from AASHTO's "Roadway Lighting Design Guide", and specifically the section on highways. Upon establishing such warranting conditions, justification of the highway lighting will be documented in accordance with the FDOT's Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies (MUTS) Chapter 15, Highway Lighting Justification Procedure. Proposed lighting will satisfy conventional roadway lighting criteria set forth in Table 7.3.1, FDOT Plans Preparation Manual (PPM) Volume 1. EXISTING LIGHTING CONDITIONS There are currently no existing street lights consistently along the SR 847 project segment. Lighting is present at the signalized intersections and along the frontage road (NW 196 Terrace to NW 199 Street), while some light poles are located along the west side from NW 185 Street to NW 191 Street. At the intersection of NW 183 rd Street there are two standard aluminum light poles with cobra light fixtures mounted on bracket arms on the NE, NW and SW corners. At 191 st Street intersection, there is a joint use light pole (light fixture attached to FPL wood pole) on the northbound approach and one on the eastbound approach. The 195 th Street intersection has one stand-alone light pole on the south leg and one on the north leg. The intersection of 199 th Street has one light pole each on the west and east legs. The proposed four-lane widening of the mainline SR 847 for the build alternative will include widening of these intersections. Since the existing condition of SR 847 has no consistent street lights and low frequency of night time crashes, the proposed roadway design was analyzed to determine if SR 847 will meet the Lighting Design Justification as identified in the FDOT MUTS Chapter 15 (Appendix A). AASHTO WARRANTS The warrants for Highway Lighting will be used to provide minimum conditions under which lighting may be justified. The AASHTO warrants are the primary set of guidelines to be met. FDOT follows the warrants for roadway lighting established by the AASHTO guidelines. The following section addresses the MUTS Chapter 15 Highway Lighting Justification procedures. Street lighting may be considered for those locations where the respective governmental agencies concur that lighting will contribute substantially to the efficiency and comfort of vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Lighting may be provided for all major arterials in urbanized areas and for 1

5 locations or sections of streets and highways where the ratio of night to day accident rates is higher than the statewide average for similar locations, and a study indicates that lighting may be expected to significantly reduce the night accident rate. In these cases, the determinations to install lighting have been made on the basis of experience and accident data under certain existing conditions. These conditions include the average daily traffic for the roadway for existing and build out and the accidents rate. The supporting data for this corridor's Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is as follows: ADT (current year 2012) = 18,918 Night time ADT (existing 2012) = 4,248 The FDOT MUTS roadway lighting justification procedure is used to determine if the project is justified based on its benefit-cost ratio. If the benefit-cost ratio is equal to 1.0 or more, then lighting is justified for the high crash locations as identified by the State Safety office. The following equation is used to calculate the benefit-cost (B-C) ratio: Benefit-cost ratio = ADT x %ADT n x 365 days x NRU x CRF x ACC (AIC + TMC + AEC) x 1,000,000 ADT = Average Daily Traffic %ADT n = Percent of ADT at night NRU = Night crash rate unlighted CRF = Crash reduction factor ACC = Average crash cost AIC = Annualized installation cost TMC = Total annual maintenance cost AEC = Annual energy cost ANALYSIS OF THE HIGHWAY LIGHTING JUSTIFICATION The FDOT MUTS Chapter 15 Highway Lighting Justification Procedure is developed to analyze the B-C ratio of installing the lighting system. The benefits to the public, measured in terms of accident reductions and reductions in economic loss, are compared to the costs for installation, maintenance, and operation of the system. In general, lighting systems are considered to be justified if the benefit cost ratio is 1.0 or greater for high accident locations. At other locations this ratio should be 2.0 or greater. In applying this benefit-cost analysis, several preliminary measures were taken. Among these were an estimate of the number of lighting poles and luminaires necessary in the calculations for the NRU, and calculations for the Average Crash Cost (ACC). The preliminary items mentioned above are used as inputs to the Highway Lighting Justification Procedure, of which these inputs, as well as the remaining ones, are outlined in the following paragraphs. A. NUMBER OF POLES, LUMINAIRES, AND WATTAGE There are currently no existing street lights along the mainline segments of SR 847 which include the existing Snake Creek Canal Bridge. The segment from NW 183 rd Street to 2

6 NW 207 th Drive traverses through a heavily urbanized corridor and from NW 207 th Street to Premier Parkway, it is mostly rural corridor. As mentioned, there are sporadic existing street lights at the signalized intersections. A lighting analysis considered the proposed four-lane widening of SR 847 for spacing, type of luminaires and wattage. The existing ADT was used for the build benefit-cost ratio analysis. B. NIGHT ACCIDENT RATE UNLIGHTED The calculation of the Night Rate Unlighted (NRU) involved utilization of FDOT Crash Analysis Report (CAR) accident data for the period of 2007 to 2011 which is provided in Appendix B of this report. Accident data pertaining to unlighted conditions were reviewed in the CAR. Number of night crashes, along with the ADT, the percent of ADT at night (% ADTn), and the project length were then used to compute the NRU. The % ADTn was calculated from available traffic data (4 years). The resultant average for % ADTn is: % ADTn = 22.37% The limits of actual accident data for the analysis were taken from the FDOT CAR for the five year period for the SR 847 project segment. The project segment from NW 183 rd Street to Premier Parkway has an approximate total length of 2.3 miles which was used for the basis of calculating the NRU. The NRU was calculated as follows: NRU = (Night Accidents)(1 x 10 6 ) (ADT exist )(%ADTn) (365) (project length) = (19 x 10 6 ) / (18,918 x 22.37% x 365 x 2.3) = 5.34 C. AVERAGE CRASH COST ACC = average crash cost The ACC for a 4-lane divided urban roadway obtained from FDOT s State Safety Office Bulletin dated August 5, 2010 is $83,359 (Appendix C). D. CONSTRUCTION COST PER POLE The construction cost per pole is estimated to be $13,318 based on FDOT average unit prices. A breakdown of this cost is provided in Appendix D. 3

7 The number of poles per mile = 5280 ft/mile x 1 pole/242 ft* x 2 sides = 44 *242 ft spacing per lighting analysis (Appendix E), meeting FDOT lighting criteria Annualized Installation Cost (AIC) is $13,318 x Capital Recovery Factor x #poles/mile Interest rate = 4%; Service life = 15 years Capital Recovery Factor = 0.04 x (1.04)^ ^15-1 = AIC (urban) = $13,318 x x 44 poles (@242 ft spacing) = $52,681 E. ELECTRICAL ENERGY COST The electrical cost is based on the Average Electrical Cost (AEC) in Florida which is estimated at 0.08 $/KHW. AEC = No. of Poles/mile x luminaire/pole x watts/luminaire x kw/1000w x cents/kwh x 11 hours/day x$/100 cent x 365 day/year AEC = 44 poles/mile x 1 luminaire/pole x 400 watts/luminaire x kw/1000w x 8 cent /KWH x $/100 cent x 11 hour/day x 365 day/year = $5,653 F. INTEREST RATE The interest rate used for the justification is 4%. This is the interest rate used in generating a capital recovery factor (CRF). The service life used is 15 years to determine the CRF. G. ACCIDENT (CRASH) REDUCTION FACTOR The Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) for SR 847 based on Figure 15-1 per FDOT MUTS, the rural and urban mainline CRF are the following: Mainline CRF (urban 5%) = 0.20 (Figure 15-1 CRFs, FDOT MUTS Chapter 15) H. ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COST PER LUMINAIRE The annual maintenance cost per standard lighting luminaire is based on the typical value of $240 per luminaire pole. This information was then used as inputs to the Highway Lighting Justification Program and the results showed the following total annual maintenance costs (TMC). 4

8 TMC = No. of poles/mile x Luminaries/pole x annual maintenance cost TMC = 44 x 1 x $240 TMC (urban 5%) = $10,560 CALCULATION OF BENEFIT- COST RATIO Using the FDOT MUTS benefit-cost equations, the following benefit-cost ratio is calculated: Benefit-cost ratio = ADT x %ADTn x 365 days x NRU x CRF x ACC (AIC + TMC + AEC) x 1,000,000 ADT = Average Daily Traffic (existing): 18,918 %ADTn = Percent of ADT at night: 22.37% NRU = Night crash rate unlighted: 5.34 CRF = Crash reduction factor: 0.20 ACC = Average crash cost: $83,359 AIC = Annualized installation cost: $52,681 TMC = Total annual maintenance cost: $10,560 AEC = Annual energy cost: $5,653 SR 847 from NW 183 rd Street to Premier Parkway (urban 5% commercial segment) Mainline urban B-C = 18,918 x x 365 days x 5.34 x 0.20 x $83,359 (52, , ,653) x 1,000,000 = 2.0 CONCLUSIONS Continuous roadway lighting is generally justified when the B-C ratio is 2.0 or greater. Therefore, the calculated mainline urban B-C ratio of 2.0 indicates that lighting is justified along the limits of the proposed four-lane project. Additionally, continuous roadway lighting throughout the project limits would contribute to the safety of bicycle traffic travelling in the bike lanes along with pedestrian traffic along the sidewalks. The proposed lighting system would consist of 400+W luminaires mounted on conventional aluminum light poles at 40 ft mounting height with a 12 ft bracket arm. The number of poles is based on a pole-to-pole spacing estimate of 242 ft for the project segment. A spacing of 274 ft can be provided where the proposed median width is reduced to 16.5 ft. The light poles would be located on both side of the roadway in a staggered pattern. Alternative designs/layouts would require that the cost be recalculated and re-used in the calculation of the B-C ratio. 5

9 Appendix A FDOT MUTS Chapter 15 Highway Lighting Justification Procedure

10 Topic No Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies January 2000 Chapter 15 HIGHWAY LIGHTING JUSTIFICATION PROCEDURE Note: At the time of publication, the Department had formed a task team to reanalyze this procedure. Changes to this chapter will be forthcoming after recommendations from the task team are completed. These changes will be distributed as a revision to the manual and sent to all registered holders PURPOSE (1) The Department, in cooperation with the University of Florida Transportation Research Center, has developed a procedure for analyzing and justifying roadway lighting systems. This procedure is based on the benefit-cost ratio for a lighting project. This chapter includes a summary of the procedure, an example problem, and documentation. The procedure explained herein is a modified and improved practical version of the original procedure developed by the University of Florida explained in Alternatives for Reducing Energy Consumption in Highway Lighting (Transportation Research Center Technical Report No. D84-1, March 1977). (2) The procedure allows lighting projects to be ranked according to priority for construction. Those with a higher benefit-cost ratio have more value in benefits to the public than those with a lower ratio. The procedure compares benefits to the public from crash reduction to the government s cost for installation, maintenance, and operation. Analysis of existing lighting systems to determine if they should be retained is also discussed STEP 1: AASHTO WARRANTS (1) The Department currently follows the warrants for roadway lighting established by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). The warrants outline specific conditions for continuous freeway lighting, the complete partial lighting of interchanges on unlighted freeways, and lighting of other streets and highways. The warrants are based on Average Daily Traffic (ADT), the ratio of night to day crashes, local government participation in the cost, and other factors. We also use NCHRP Report 152, Warrants for Highway Lighting as a supplement to AASHTO on arterials. Highway Lighting Justification Procedure 15-1

11 January 2000 Topic No Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies (2) It should be noted that the conditions described in the AASHTO warrant guidelines are roadway conditions under which lighting may be considered warranted and do not necessarily describe the sites where lighting is specifically justified. Designers should first address AASHTO warrants and Rule 14-64, F.A.C., Illumination of the State Highway System. If these conditions are met, then a benefit-cost analysis should be made STEP 2: BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS (1) The purpose of this step in the roadway lighting justification procedure is to determine if the project is justified based on its benefit-cost ratio. If the benefit-cost ratio is equal to 1.0 or more, then lighting is justified for high crash locations as identified by the State Safety office. At other locations the benefit-cost ratio should be 2.0 or greater. However, projects should be ranked according to their value in benefit to the public. Those with a higher ratio offer more value than those with a lower ratio. The procedure can be used to analyze either an existing or proposed lighting system. There are two primary differences between the two analyses. (2) First, for an existing lighting system, the night unlighted crash rate is assumed to be 1.5 times the night lighted rate. This insures an adequate safety factor in the analytical process and assumptions. But for a proposed system, the night unlighted crash rate is based on actual crash data collected at the site. In cases when reliable crash data are not available, a minimum unlighted crash rate of 3.0 crashes per million vehicle miles has been determined to be a reasonable default value for conditions in Florida. (3) The second difference between the analyses is that if an existing lighting system is being evaluated to determine if it should continue to operate, the cost of the installation is not considered because it is a sunk cost. This recognizes that the initial investment in lighting hardware has already been made. (4) It must be stressed that while defaults are suggested in this report, they do not appear to be the best value to describe local cost scale nor can they be used without yearly cost adjustment. It is the user s responsibility to justify the value to adopt in analysis. (5) The following equations are used to calculate the benefit-cost ratio Analysis of New Roadway Lighting Systems Benefit-Cost Ratio = ADT x %ADTn x 365 x NRU x CRF x ACC for Lighting (AIC + TMC + AEC) x 1,000,000 Installation 15-2 Highway Lighting Justification Procedure

12 Topic No Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies January Analysis of Existing Roadway Lighting Systems Where: Benefit-Cost Ratio = ADT x %ADTn x 365 x NRU x CRF x ACC for Lighting (TMC + AEC) x 1,000,000 Retention ADT = Average Daily Traffic (Existing or Projected) %ADTn = Percent of ADT at night NRU = Night crash rate unlighted CRF = Crash reduction factor ACC = Average crash cost (U.S. dollars per crash) AIC = Annualized installation cost TMC = Total annual maintenance cost AEC = Annual energy cost Costs Annualized installation cost, total annual maintenance cost, and annual energy cost are expressed on a U.S. dollar per mile basis for mainline sections and as a total U.S. dollar value for interchanges Night Crash Rate Unlighted (NRU) (1) NRU is expressed as crashes per million vehicle miles for mainline sections or crashes per million entering vehicles for interchanges. (2) The annual lighting cost is the sum of electrical costs, maintenance costs, and installation costs (proposed systems only). The NRU is obtained by searching crash records provided by local or state agencies. The percent of ADT at night (% ADTn) can be determined by examining traffic data. (3) The following data from the FHWA's Technical Advisory T (January 30, 1988), may be used for computation of the average crash cost at any particular location. $1.7 million/fatality $14,000/injury $3,000/property damage (4) Crash reduction factors for various geometric configurations are given in Figure The crash reduction factor is a numerical value assigned to certain types of facilities and locations. It is based on an estimate of the crash reduction potential due to the installation of lighting. Highway Lighting Justification Procedure 15-3

13 January 2000 Topic No Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies Figure Crash Reduction Factors (CRF) Site Description CRF Urban Freeway Interchange 0.80 Urban Freeway Mainline 0.20 Rural Freeway Interchange 0.80 Rural Freeway Mainline 0.20 Non-Controlled Access Roadways Rural Intersection 0.20 Rural Mainline 0.10 Urban Intersection 0.20 Urban Mainline (Commercial) Urban Mainline (25% Commercial) Urban Mainline (5% Commercial) (5) Calculation of the benefit-cost ratio can be performed manually or by using a computer based program. The program is much faster and provides a printed one-page documentation of the analysis. The process can be better understood by following the manual calculation in the example problem below Example of the Benefit-Cost Ratio (Manual Calculation) High crash location New lighting system Mainline urban freeway Night crash rate unlighted: 2.0 crashes per million vehicle miles ADT: 41,800 vehicles/day Percentage ADT at night: 35 percent Average crash cost: $28,850 Energy costs: $.04/KWH Conventional as opposed to high mast lighting (cost per pole: $3,000) Crash reduction factor:.20 (as determined by Figure 15-1) 15-4 Highway Lighting Justification Procedure

14 Topic No Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies January 2000 Historical Values Typical in Similar Locations Poles on both sides of road Spacing between poles: 300 feet Luminary wattage: 400 W One luminary per pole Interest rate: 10 percent Annual maintenance cost per luminary: $80 Objective: Procedure: Find the benefit-cost ratio to determine if the proposed lighting system is justified. Calculate the benefit-cost ratio. If the benefit-cost ratio is equal to or greater than 1.0, the lighting system is considered to be justified for a high crash location. Calculations: Capital Recover = (IR/100 ) x (1 + (IR/100 ) 15 (CRF, IR=10%,15 yr) ( 1 + (IR/100) 15-1 = No. of Poles = 5,280 ft x 1 pole x No. sides lighted Miles or Inter. mile spacing (ft) = 5,280 ft x 1 pole x 2 sides mile 300 ft = 35 AIC = Initial Cost/Pole x CRF x No. of Poles Mile or Inter. = 3,000 x x 35 = 13,885 TMC = No.of Poles x Luminaries x Annual Maintenance Cost miles or Inter. Pole Luminary = 35 x 1 x $80 = 2,816 AEC = No. of Poles x Luminaries x Watts x KW Mile or Inter. Pole Luminaire 1000 W x Cents x 11 Hours x $ x 365 Days KWH Day 100 Cents Year = 35 x 1 x 400 x 1/1000 x 4 x 11 x 1/100 x 365 = 2,261 Highway Lighting Justification Procedure 15-5

15 January 2000 Topic No Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies B-C Ratio = ADT x %ADTn x 365 x NRU x CRF x ACC (AIC + TMC + AEC) x 1,000,000 = 41,800 x 0.35 x 365 x 2.0 x 0.20 x $28,850 (13, ,816 +2,261) x 1,000,000 = 3.25 The Benefit-Cost ratio is equal to or greater than 1.0, therefore lighting is justified. However, any project with a higher ratio should be given a higher priority for construction. Note: A service life of 15 years is used in the capital recovery factor. Initial Cost/Pole should be based on historical data for similar projects. It should be calculated by dividing the total lighting project cost, including engineering, by the number of poles. Annual energy cost is based on an average of 11 hours of darkness per day in Florida DETERMINING OPERATIONAL STATUS OF EXISTING LIGHTING: FREEWAYS (1) Existing highway lighting systems are subject to various causes of electrical or mechanical malfunction. Pole knockdowns, lightning strikes, damaged-circuits, blown fuses, burned-out bulbs, and other causes result in an operational status that is almost always less than 100 percent. (2) This guideline sets forth a procedure that can assist the engineer in determining when a certain section of existing lighting is operating below an acceptable level. The procedure calculates an operational ratio of the actual lighting operation level to the base lighting operation level. An acceptable range of operational ratio is between 0.90 and 1.00 for interchanges and for the total lighting system. However, a range between 0.75 and 1.00 is acceptable for mainline systems. (3) This technique should only be used as a guideline and should not form the basis in all cases for determining when corrective repair work is scheduled for a highway lighting system. The procedure does, however, recognize that costeffective management of lighting system maintenance involves a value judgement relating to the seriousness of various types, patterns, locations, and the number of failed fixtures Highway Lighting Justification Procedure

16 Topic No Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies January 2000 (4) Figures 15-3 and 15-4 include a graphical presentation of the procedure. Unacceptable levels of operation are defined in Figure (5) It has been estimated that approximately 0.6 hour of data collection team time is needed for each mile of the study site. Approximately one-fourth of the inspection time should be spent during daylight hours during which time the number of installations and knockdowns should be counted. The remaining three-fourths of the inspection time should be spent during nighttime hours counting burned out luminaires and tabulating data. Examples of completed tables and calculation techniques are provided in Figures 15-5, 15-6, and FORMS ACCESS Reproducible copies of the Guidelines for Determining the Operational Status of Existing Lighting Systems on Freeway Facilities (Form Nos , , and ) are in the Appendix. These forms are also available in the Department's Forms Library. Highway Lighting Justification Procedure 15-7

17 January 2000 Topic No Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies Figure Guidelines for Assessing Operational Level of Highway Lighting TYPE AREA Gore Area Terminal Area Ramp Area Mainline Section Crossroad Section High Mast Interchange High Mast Mainline DESCRIPTION The area that begins at the ramp taper and ends at the beginning of the physical gore. The area (or groups of areas) within a 250 foot radius measured from the center of the ramp pavement where it joins the edge of a crossroad. OPERATIONAL POINTS FOR EACH AREA/SECTION Any section of ramp roadway not considered in a gore or terminal area. 15 Any section of one-way mainline roadway between gore areas. 10 The two-way traffic section between terminal areas or from terminal areas to the ends of the lighting maintenance. 5 When high lighting towers are involved, none of the above sub-areas shall be identified within the interchange. The interchange is defined as the limits of the interchange high mast lighting. Mainline high mast lighting shall only apply when towers exist for at least one mile continuously between the end of ramp tapers at successive interchanges MINIMUM UNACCEPTABLE OPERATING CONDITION Two inoperative fixtures within the gore area. Twenty-five percent of the fixtures inoperative within the terminal area. Three consecutive fixtures or 50 percent of the total fixtures inoperative along the ramp section. If a mainline section has one or more groups with three or more consecutive luminaires inoperative, the sum of the numbers in the groups is multiplied by two and added to the remaining number of inoperative luminaires.* Three consecutive fixtures inoperative along the one side of the crossroad or two consecutive fixtures inoperative along one side of the crossroad opposite two consecutive inoperative fixtures. Twenty-five percent of the fixtures inoperative or two adjacent towers with all fixtures inoperative. Twenty-five percent of the fixtures inoperative or two adjacent towers with all fixtures inoperative. *If the sum is greater than 25 percent of the total number of luminaires, then the section is unacceptable Highway Lighting Justification Procedure

18 Topic No Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies January 2000 Figure Example Application of Procedure Highway Lighting Justification Procedure 15-9

19 January 2000 Topic No Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies Figure Graphical Representation Terminal Area Area within 250 feet of ramp terminal. Each ramp has only one terminal area, regardless of channelization. There are six fixtures in one terminal area shown at right. 250' 250' RAMP Ramp Limits From physical gore to 250 feet from terminal. GORE AREA Gore Area The area that begins at the ramp taper and ends at the beginning of the physical gore Highway Lighting Justification Procedure

20 Topic No Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies January 2000 Figure 15-5 Highway Lighting Justification Procedure 15-11

21 January 2000 Topic No Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies Figure Highway Lighting Justification Procedure

22 Topic No Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies January 2000 Figure 15-7 Highway Lighting Justification Procedure 15-13

23 January 2000 Topic No Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies Highway Lighting Justification Procedure

24 Appendix B FDOT Crash Data

25

26 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CRASH SUMMARY SECTION: STATE ROUTE: 847 INTERSECTING ROADWAY: SR 860-Premier Pkwy M.P. 0 TO ENGINEER: Bao Ying STUDY PERIOD: FROM 1/ 07 TO 12/ 07 COUNTY: Miami Dade Crash Number No. Mile Post DATE DAY TIME TYPE FATAL INJURY PROP DAM DAY / NT WET / DRY CONTRIBUTING CAUSE /6/2007 Tue 1100 Angle Day Dry Unknown /30/2007 Sun 800 Left-Turn Nite Dry Unknown /12/2007 Tue 1300 Rear-End Day Dry Unknown /26/2007 Mon 2300 Coll. W/ Pedestrian Nite Wet Unknown /25/2007 Tue 800 Left-Turn Day Wet Unknown /16/2007 Mon 1700 Rear-End Day Dry All Other /28/2007 Wed 1300 Angle Day Dry Unknown /13/2007 Tue 1500 Rear-End Day Dry Careless Driving /16/2007 Tue 800 Rear-End Day Dry Unknown /7/2007 Wed 1900 Rear-End Nite Dry Careless Driving /11/2007 Mon 1700 All other Day Dry Unknown /1/2007 Sun 1900 Rear-End Day Wet Unknown /31/2007 Mon 2200 w/ MV on Other Road Nite Dry Improper Turn /18/2007 Wed 500 Angle Nite Dry Unknown /5/2007 Sat 1500 Angle Day Dry Unknown /5/2007 Sun 2300 All other Unk Other Unknown /24/2007 Sat 1700 Angle Nite Dry All Other /8/2007 Thu 1500 All other Day Dry Unknown /1/2007 Sun 1800 Overturned Day Dry All Other /17/2007 Mon 900 Rear-End Day Dry Unknown /11/2007 Wed 2100 Left-Turn Nite Dry Unknown /10/2007 Fri 1300 Left-Turn Day Dry Unknown /29/2007 Sat 1100 Rear-End Day Dry Unknown /4/2007 Fri 2000 All other Nite Dry Unknown /25/2007 Fri 1700 Rear-End Day Dry Unknown /28/2007 Tue 700 Left-Turn Day Dry Unknown /6/2007 Tue 1800 Left-Turn Nite Dry Unknown /9/2007 Fri 1600 All other Day Dry Unknown /18/2007 Fri 600 Left-Turn Day Dry Unknown /25/2007 Tue 600 Coll. W/ Pedestrian Nite Slippery Unknown /27/2007 Thu 1800 Rear-End Day Dry Careless Driving /27/2007 Thu 1800 Rear-End Day Dry Careless Driving /1/2007 Thu 800 Rear-End Day Dry Careless Driving /7/2007 Tue 1600 Rear-End Day Dry Careless Driving /19/2007 Mon 900 Sideswipe Day Dry Failed to Yield R/W /30/2007 Tue 1200 Right-Turn Day Dry All Other /11/2007 Sun 1900 Left-Turn Nite Wet Disregarded Traffic Signal /16/2007 Fri 500 Rear-End Nite Dry Failed to Yield R/W /28/2007 Wed 1400 Coll w/utility Pole Day Dry Unknown /1/2007 Thu 500 Left-Turn Day Dry Improper Turn /3/2007 Sat 1900 Angle Nite Dry Failed to Yield R/W /11/2007 Sun 500 Angle Nite Dry Disregarded Traffic Signal /16/2007 Fri 1000 Sideswipe Day Wet Improper Turn /17/2007 Sat 800 Right-Turn Day Dry Improper Turn /19/2007 Mon 2300 Left-Turn Nite Dry Failed to Yield R/W /22/2007 Thu 1300 Right-Turn Day Wet Improper Turn /18/2007 Wed 1700 Rear-End Day Dry Unknown /24/2007 Tue 1300 Left-Turn Day Dry Failed to Yield R/W /6/2007 Sun 300 Left-Turn Nite Dry Disregarded Traffic Signal /7/2007 Sat 100 Angle Nite Other Disregarded Traffic Signal /12/2007 Thu 1600 Rear-End Day Dry Careless Driving /8/2007 Wed 1800 Left-Turn Day Dry Failed to Yield R/W /22/2007 Mon 1000 All other Day Dry Disregarded Traffic Signal /8/2007 Thu 1800 Head-On Nite Dry Careless Driving /27/2007 Tue 1100 Left-Turn Day Dry All Other /8/2007 Thu 1700 Rear-End Day Dry Unknown /18/2007 Sun 2100 Coll w/bicycle Nite Dry Alcohol - Under Influence

27 /4/2007 Sun 300 Hit Guardrail Nite Dry Careless Driving /17/2007 Mon 1200 Explosion Day Dry All Other /17/2007 Thu 1400 All other Day Dry Unknown /25/2007 Thu 600 Sideswipe Nite Dry Unknown /10/2007 Sat 1400 Angle Day Dry Unknown Fixed Total No. Fatal Injury PDO Angle Object Right Turn Rear End Side swipe Ped/Bike % 1.61% 4.84% 27.42% 4.84% 4.84% Excess One Vehicle Day Night Wet Dry Speed FTYR/W DUI % 64.52% 35.48% 9.68% 85.48% 0.00% 11.29% 4.84% TOTAL VEHICLES ENTERING / ADT : 19,100 SPOT ACCIDENT RATE: /MV SEGMENT ACCIDENT RATE: /MVM

28 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CRASH SUMMARY SECTION: STATE ROUTE: 847 INTERSECTING ROADWAY: SR 860-Premier Pkwy M.P. 0 TO ENGINEER: Bao Ying STUDY PERIOD: FROM 1/ 08 TO 12/ 08 COUNTY: Miami Dade Crash Number No. Mile Post DATE DAY TIME TYPE FATAL INJURY PROP DAM DAY / NT WET / DRY CONTRIBUTING CAUSE /7/2008 Mon 1800 Angle Day Wet Failed to Yield R/W /13/2008 Fri 1500 Angle Day Dry Failed to Yield R/W /29/2008 Fri 1400 Left-Turn Day Dry Improper Lane Change /15/2008 Fri 2000 Backed Into Nite Dry Unknown /30/2008 Sun 1800 Sideswipe Day Wet Unknown /21/2008 Sat 1700 Rear-End Day Other Unknown /1/2008 Fri 1200 Right-Turn Day Dry Unknown /21/2008 Sat 900 Angle Day Dry Unknown /17/2008 Wed 700 Left-Turn Day Dry Failed to Yield R/W /14/2008 Sat 2100 Rear-End Nite Dry Followed too Closely /10/2008 Wed 1500 w/ MV on Other Road Day Dry Followed too Closely /19/2008 Sat 2300 Angle Nite Dry Unknown /28/2008 Sun 2100 Left-Turn Nite Wet Failed to Yield R/W /25/2008 Tue 1600 Rear-End Day Dry Followed too Closely /16/2008 Tue 2100 Left-Turn Nite Dry Unknown /13/2008 Sat 800 Rear-End Day Dry Careless Driving /27/2008 Sun 200 Angle Nite Dry Failed to Yield R/W /8/2008 Fri 100 Angle Nite Dry Unknown /15/2008 Fri 1800 Right-Turn Day Dry Failed to Yield R/W /13/2008 Sat 200 Angle Nite Dry Unknown /6/2008 Wed 1700 Rear-End Nite Dry Careless Driving /27/2008 Thu 2300 Sideswipe Nite Dry Unknown /13/2008 Wed 800 Rear-End Day Dry Unknown /5/2008 Fri 1700 Rear-End Day Dry Careless Driving /5/2008 Fri 600 Left-Turn Nite Wet Failed to Yield R/W /1/2008 Wed 1700 Rear-End Day Dry Unknown /16/2008 Fri 1800 Rear-End Day Dry Unknown /3/2008 Wed 700 Rear-End Day Dry Unknown /22/2008 Tue 1000 Angle Day Dry Unknown /7/2008 Mon 1800 Rear-End Nite Dry Careless Driving /26/2008 Sat 1700 w/ MV on Other Road Nite Dry Careless Driving /29/2008 Sat 2000 Angle Nite Dry Unknown /12/2008 Mon 1000 Angle Day Dry Failed to Yield R/W /26/2008 Sat 400 Hit Sign/Sign Post Nite Dry Careless Driving /17/2008 Fri 2000 All other Nite Dry Unknown /18/2008 Sat 1900 Angle Nite Dry Disregarded Traffic Signal /2/2008 Tue 600 Head-On Nite Dry Disregarded Traffic Signal /18/2008 Fri 500 Rear-End Nite Dry Careless Driving /27/2008 Sat 1900 Coll. W/ Pedestrian Nite Dry Failed to Yield R/W /7/2008 Mon 1900 Sideswipe Nite Dry Disregarded Traffic Signal /15/2008 Tue 700 Left-Turn Day Dry Failed to Yield R/W /17/2008 Mon 2300 Sideswipe Nite Dry Careless Driving /17/2008 Mon 1800 Backed Into Day Dry Improper Backing /22/2008 Sat 1400 Head-On Day Wet Failed to Yield R/W /29/2008 Sat 1100 Rear-End Day Dry Unknown /13/2008 Sun 2200 Rear-End Nite Dry Failed to Yield R/W /15/2008 Tue 800 Angle Day Dry Failed to Yield R/W /18/2008 Fri 1700 Sideswipe Day Dry Improper Passing /12/2008 Sun 1700 Sideswipe Day Dry Improper Lane Change /20/2008 Mon 1400 Left-Turn Day Dry Failed to Yield R/W /24/2008 Mon 1100 Sideswipe Day Dry Disregarded Stop Sign /8/2008 Mon 1900 Right-Turn Nite Dry Improper Turn /12/2008 Tue 500 Rear-End Day Dry Unknown /3/2008 Sat 1200 Rear-End Day Dry Unknown /5/2008 Fri 1900 Sideswipe Nite Dry Improper Lane Change /21/2008 Mon 2000 Coll. W/ Pedestrian Nite Dry Unknown /30/2008 Tue 1700 All other Day Dry Improper Lane Change

29 /13/2008 Wed 1700 Angle Nite Wet Unknown /18/2008 Thu 1700 Rear-End Nite Dry Careless Driving /18/2008 Fri 1400 Angle Day Dry Unknown /18/2008 Fri 1500 Coll w/ Parked Car Day Dry Unknown /8/2008 Tue 1700 Rear-End Day Wet Careless Driving /6/2008 Sun 1100 Angle Day Dry Unknown /24/2008 Wed 1500 Rear-End Day Wet Followed too Closely Fixed Total No. Fatal Injury PDO Angle Object Right Turn Rear End Side swipe Ped/Bike % 1.56% 4.69% 29.69% 12.50% 3.13% Excess One Vehicle Day Night Wet Dry Speed FTYR/W DUI % 56.25% 43.75% 12.50% 85.94% 0.00% 21.88% 1.56% TOTAL VEHICLES ENTERING / ADT : 21,000 SPOT ACCIDENT RATE: /MV SEGMENT ACCIDENT RATE: /MVM

30 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CRASH SUMMARY SECTION: STATE ROUTE: 847 INTERSECTING ROADWAY: SR 860-Premier Pkwy M.P. 0 TO ENGINEER: Bao Ying STUDY PERIOD: FROM 1/ 09 TO 12/ 09 COUNTY: Miami Dade Crash Number No. Mile Post DATE DAY TIME TYPE FATAL INJURY PROP DAM DAY / NT WET / DRY CONTRIBUTING CAUSE /2/2009 Tue 1000 Sideswipe Day Dry Unknown /19/2009 Wed 900 Angle Day Dry Improper Lane Change /17/2009 Thu 2200 Rear-End Nite Wet Followed too Closely /28/2009 Mon 800 Sideswipe Day Dry Unknown /3/2009 Tue 900 Fire Day Dry Unknown /23/2009 Wed 1400 Angle Day Dry Careless Driving /7/2009 Sun 2200 Angle Nite Dry Careless Driving /7/2009 Sun 200 Coll w/ Parked Car Nite Wet Careless Driving /9/2009 Sat 1500 Coll. W/ Pedestrian Day Dry All Other /17/2009 Thu 2000 Rear-End Nite Dry Careless Driving /15/2009 Sun 1500 Backed Into Day Dry Improper Backing /21/2009 Sat 2000 w/ MV on Other Road Nite Dry Followed too Closely /11/2009 Thu 1900 Rear-End Day Dry Careless Driving /21/2009 Sat 1800 Sideswipe Nite Wet All Other /25/2009 Sat 700 Rear-End Day Dry Careless Driving /1/2009 Tue 700 w/ MV on Other Road Day Dry Careless Driving /5/2009 Sat 400 Angle Nite Dry Disregarded Traffic Signal /4/2009 Sun 1500 Angle Day Dry All Other /12/2009 Thu 1700 Angle Nite Dry Failed to Yield R/W /8/2009 Thu 2000 Rear-End Nite Dry Careless Driving /25/2009 Sat 2000 Rear-End Nite Dry Careless Driving /17/2009 Tue 1800 Rear-End Nite Dry All Other /22/2009 Thu 2000 Rear-End Nite Dry Improper Lane Change /4/2009 Fri 700 Angle Day Wet Disregarded Stop Sign /17/2009 Thu 2000 Coll. W/ Pedestrian Nite Wet Unknown /23/2009 Tue 1100 Angle Day Wet Failed to Yield R/W /28/2009 Tue 1300 Angle Day Dry Failed to Yield R/W /27/2009 Wed 900 w/ MV on Other Road Day Dry Followed too Closely /23/2009 Mon 1800 Rear-End Nite Dry Careless Driving /30/2009 Fri 1500 w/ MV on Other Road Day Wet Failed to Yield R/W /10/2009 Tue 800 Left-Turn Day Dry Failed to Yield R/W /12/2009 Tue 1000 Head-On Day Dry Disregarded Traffic Signal /23/2009 Sat 1100 Rear-End Day Dry Followed too Closely /30/2009 Wed 1200 Rear-End Day Dry Careless Driving /3/2009 Sat 1200 Head-On Day Dry All Other /25/2009 Wed 1400 Sideswipe Day Wet Careless Driving /2/2009 Mon 1900 Angle Nite Wet Failed to Yield R/W /16/2009 Wed 900 Sideswipe Day Dry Improper Lane Change /13/2009 Tue 2000 Angle Nite Wet Unknown /25/2009 Wed 1100 Angle Day Dry Unknown /13/2009 Mon 1700 Sideswipe Day Dry Improper Lane Change /18/2009 Sat 2200 Angle Nite Wet Failed to Yield R/W /19/2009 Thu 1900 Left-Turn Nite Dry Failed to Yield R/W /28/2009 Mon 1200 Rear-End Day Dry Unknown /9/2009 Thu 1300 Coll. W/ Pedestrian Day Dry All Other /28/2009 Thu 1600 w/ MV on Other Road Day Wet Improper Lane Change /23/2009 Fri 2100 Angle Nite Dry Careless Driving /29/2009 Sun 600 Angle Nite Dry Careless Driving /10/2009 Tue 800 Sideswipe Day Dry Careless Driving /18/2009 Thu 1800 Rear-End Day Dry Followed too Closely /9/2009 Thu 1700 Angle Day Dry Failed to Yield R/W Fixed Total No. Fatal Injury PDO Angle Object Right Turn Rear End Side swipe Ped/Bike % 0.00% 0.00% 25.49% 13.73% 5.88% Excess One Vehicle Day Night Wet Dry Speed FTYR/W DUI

31 7.84% 60.78% 39.22% 23.53% 76.47% 0.00% 17.65% 0.00% TOTAL VEHICLES ENTERING / ADT : 22,000 SPOT ACCIDENT RATE: /MV SEGMENT ACCIDENT RATE: /MVM

32 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CRASH SUMMARY SECTION: STATE ROUTE: 847 INTERSECTING ROADWAY: SR 860-Premier Pkwy M.P. 0 TO ENGINEER: Bao Ying STUDY PERIOD: FROM 1/ 10 TO 12/ 10 COUNTY: Miami Dade Crash Number No. Mile Post DATE DAY TIME TYPE FATAL INJURY PROP DAM DAY / NT WET / DRY CONTRIBUTING CAUSE /17/2010 Tue 2200 Sideswipe Nite Dry Failed to Yield R/W /9/2010 Thu 1800 All other Nite Dry Unknown /30/2010 Sat 100 All other Nite Dry Careless Driving /3/2010 Wed 1200 Left-Turn Day Wet Unknown /11/2010 Tue 1600 w/ MV on Other Road Day Dry Careless Driving /30/2010 Mon 1600 Coll. W/ Pedestrian Day Dry Failed to Yield R/W /26/2010 Sun 2300 Angle Nite Dry Improper Lane Change /15/2010 Mon 1200 Coll. W/ Pedestrian Day Dry All Other /5/2010 Sun 0 Coll. W/ Pedestrian Nite Dry Careless Driving /26/2010 Thu 1500 Angle Day Dry Improper Lane Change /30/2010 Thu 1400 Rear-End Day Dry Careless Driving /21/2010 Sun 2000 Rear-End Nite Dry Followed too Closely /5/2010 Wed 1700 All other Day Dry All Other /24/2010 Fri 1500 Angle Day Dry Failed to Yield R/W /23/2010 Thu 1700 Rear-End Day Wet Followed too Closely /21/2010 Tue 2100 Rear-End Nite Dry Careless Driving /17/2010 Tue 1700 Tree/Shrubbery Day Dry Fleeing Police /6/2010 Sat 1100 Rear-End Day Dry Followed too Closely /14/2010 Sun 1100 Left-Turn Day Dry Failed to Yield R/W /30/2010 Thu 800 Sideswipe Day Dry Careless Driving /12/2010 Fri 1800 Right-Turn Nite Dry Failed to Yield R/W /24/2010 Wed 1800 Rear-End Nite Wet Careless Driving /21/2010 Fri 1400 Rear-End Day Dry Careless Driving /31/2010 Mon 1200 Angle Day Dry Failed to Yield R/W /15/2010 Thu 1300 Angle Day Dry Careless Driving /26/2010 Sun 100 Sideswipe Nite Dry Careless Driving /17/2010 Sun 100 All other Nite Dry Careless Driving /23/2010 Sat 2100 Left-Turn Nite Dry Failed to Yield R/W /8/2010 Wed 1900 Angle Nite Dry Careless Driving /13/2010 Sun 2000 Rear-End Nite Dry Careless Driving /21/2010 Sun 1100 Sideswipe Day Dry All Other /9/2010 Sat 1700 Rear-End Nite Wet Followed too Closely /12/2010 Tue 800 Rear-End Day Dry Careless Driving /15/2010 Thu 1500 Sideswipe Day Dry All Other /14/2010 Thu 600 w/ MV on Other Road Day Dry Careless Driving /14/2010 Tue 1000 Angle Day Dry Failed to Yield R/W /17/2010 Fri 1500 Rear-End Day Dry Careless Driving /2/2010 Thu 2000 Angle Nite Dry Careless Driving /9/2010 Fri 1900 Rear-End Day Dry Careless Driving /24/2010 Sun 1900 Rear-End Nite Slippery Careless Driving /3/2010 Wed 1500 Rear-End Day Dry Careless Driving /21/2010 Sun 1100 Hit Sign/Sign Post Day Dry Careless Driving /15/2010 Mon 1500 Rear-End Day Dry Careless Driving /22/2010 Mon 1100 Rear-End Day Wet Careless Driving /2/2010 Fri 2300 Angle Nite Dry Disregarded Traffic Signal /2/2010 Fri 100 Angle Nite Dry Failed to Yield R/W /14/2010 Wed 0 Angle Nite Wet Disregarded Traffic Signal /28/2010 Fri 1800 Sideswipe Day Wet Careless Driving /1/2010 Tue 500 Left-Turn Nite Wet Failed to Yield R/W /22/2010 Tue 1700 Left-Turn Day Dry Improper Turn /27/2010 Tue 900 All other Day Dry All Other /20/2010 Fri 1800 Right-Turn Day Dry Improper Turn /1/2010 Wed 1800 Angle Day Dry Disregarded Traffic Signal /3/2010 Fri 1900 Angle Nite Dry Failed to Yield R/W /6/2010 Wed 1300 Angle Day Dry All Other /9/2010 Sat 1700 Angle Day Dry Improper Lane Change /14/2010 Mon 900 Angle Day Dry Failed to Yield R/W

33 /22/2010 Mon 1700 Rear-End Day Dry Careless Driving /19/2010 Fri 1700 w/ MV on Other Road Nite Dry Careless Driving /4/2010 Thu 1600 Rear-End Day Dry Careless Driving /21/2010 Sun 1900 Rear-End Nite Wet Careless Driving /19/2010 Mon 1100 Coll w/mv. Object Day Wet Unknown /1/2010 Mon 1000 w/ MV on Other Road Day Wet Careless Driving /1/2010 Thu 1500 Angle Day Dry Improper Turn /25/2010 Tue 1000 Rear-End Day Dry Followed too Closely /2/2010 Fri 1900 Angle Nite Dry Careless Driving /12/2010 Tue 2100 Left-Turn Nite Dry Failed to Yield R/W /31/2010 Sun 1300 Rear-End Day Wet Careless Driving /8/2010 Mon 1700 All other Day Dry All Other /26/2010 Sun 2000 Angle Nite Dry Improper Turn Fixed Total No. Fatal Injury PDO Angle Object Right Turn Rear End Side swipe Ped/Bike % 2.86% 2.86% 30.00% 8.57% 4.29% Excess One Vehicle Day Night Wet Dry Speed FTYR/W DUI % 61.43% 38.57% 17.14% 81.43% 0.00% 21.43% 5.71% TOTAL VEHICLES ENTERING / ADT : 24,000 SPOT ACCIDENT RATE: /MV SEGMENT ACCIDENT RATE: /MVM

34 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CRASH SUMMARY SECTION: STATE ROUTE: 847 INTERSECTING ROADWAY: SR 860-Premier Pkwy M.P. 0 TO ENGINEER: Bao Ying STUDY PERIOD: FROM 1/ 11 TO 12/ 11 COUNTY: Miami Dade Crash Number No. Mile Post DATE DAY TIME TYPE FATAL INJURY PROP DAM DAY / NT WET / DRY CONTRIBUTING CAUSE /25/2011 Mon 1400 Angle Day Dry Failed to Yield R/W /26/2011 Wed 1900 w/ MV on Other Road Nite Dry All Other /1/2011 Fri 1500 Coll. W/ Pedestrian Day Dry Unknown /4/2011 Sat 1400 Angle Day Dry Failed to Yield R/W /29/2011 Wed 2200 Head-On Nite Dry All Other /21/2011 Mon 700 Angle Day Dry Failed to Yield R/W /21/2011 Mon 1800 Angle Day Dry All Other /9/2011 Fri 1100 Coll w/ Parked Car Day Dry All Other /21/2011 Thu 1600 Rear-End Day Dry Followed too Closely /24/2011 Fri 1200 Rear-End Day Dry Followed too Closely /11/2011 Fri 800 w/ MV on Other Road Nite Dry Careless Driving /1/2011 Tue 900 Rear-End Day Dry Careless Driving /11/2011 Tue 800 w/ MV on Other Road Day Dry Careless Driving /5/2011 Sat 1500 Rear-End Day Dry Followed too Closely /28/2011 Mon 1600 w/ MV on Other Road Day Dry Careless Driving /19/2011 Sat 1100 w/ MV on Other Road Day Dry Careless Driving /26/2011 Mon 1000 Angle Day Wet Improper Turn /12/2011 Sat 2300 Angle Nite Dry Failed to Yield R/W /14/2011 Wed 1800 Rear-End Nite Dry Careless Driving /27/2011 Mon 1600 Rear-End Day Dry Careless Driving /30/2011 Sat 800 Rear-End Day Dry Careless Driving /3/2011 Mon 1800 Angle Day Dry Improper Passing /17/2011 Mon 1600 Rear-End Day Wet Careless Driving /21/2011 Mon 1300 Rear-End Day Dry Careless Driving /21/2011 Fri 1900 #N/A Nite Dry #N/A /22/2011 Sat 1400 w/ MV on Other Road Day Dry Disregarded Traffic Signal /2/2011 Wed 1800 Angle Nite Dry Failed to Yield R/W /6/2011 Wed 2200 Rear-End Nite Wet Careless Driving /26/2011 Fri 1000 Angle Day Dry Disregarded Other Traffic Con /25/2011 Sun 2000 Rear-End Nite Wet Followed too Closely /6/2011 Thu 800 Rear-End Day Dry Careless Driving /11/2011 Tue 1700 w/ MV on Other Road Day Dry Careless Driving /3/2011 Mon 1400 Rear-End Day Dry Followed too Closely /28/2011 Sat 1900 #N/A Nite Dry #N/A /17/2011 Mon 1300 Angle Day Wet Disregarded Traffic Signal /26/2011 Wed 2100 Angle Nite Dry Failed to Yield R/W /9/2011 Sat 2000 Angle Nite Dry Disregarded Traffic Signal /9/2011 Sat 100 Angle Nite Dry Failed to Yield R/W /24/2011 Tue 2200 Angle Nite Dry Disregarded Traffic Signal /19/2011 Sun 1600 Rear-End Day Wet Careless Driving /30/2011 Thu 1800 Angle Day Wet Disregarded Traffic Signal /8/2011 Thu 1400 Rear-End Day Dry Careless Driving /9/2011 Fri 1300 Rear-End Day Dry All Other /12/2011 Mon 1500 Angle Day Wet Failed to Yield R/W /19/2011 Mon 1600 w/ MV on Other Road Day Dry Unknown /3/2011 Mon 1400 Coll w/bicycle Day Dry Unknown /5/2011 Fri 1600 Angle Day Dry Failed to Yield R/W /26/2011 Wed 1800 Rear-End Day Dry Careless Driving /17/2011 Thu 2000 Coll w/ Parked Car Nite Dry Careless Driving /21/2011 Mon 1000 Rear-End Day Dry Careless Driving /5/2011 Mon 1500 Rear-End Nite Dry Careless Driving /11/2011 Sun 1200 Angle Day Wet All Other /4/2011 Fri 0 Rear-End Day Dry Followed too Closely /6/2011 Sat 1400 Angle Day Dry Improper Turn /21/2011 Mon 500 Head-On Nite Dry Failed to Yield R/W /9/2011 Wed 800 Angle Day Dry Failed to Yield R/W /8/2011 Fri 2000 Rear-End Nite Dry Followed too Closely