study of the best practices for implementing cost …hrrr... · 2013-12-20 · implementing cost...

STUDY OF THE BEST PRACTICES FOR IMPLEMENTING COST EFFECTIVE ROADWAY SAFETY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS ON HIGH RISK

RURAL ROADS

Report To:

Committee on Environment and Public Works of the United States Senate Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the United States House of

Representatives

Submitted By:

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Office of Safety

List of Acronyms AADT

BCA

BCR

Average Annual Daily Traffic

Benefit-Cost Analysis

Benefit-Cost Ratio

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs

CRAB County Road Administration Board in Washington State

DOT Department of Transportation

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

HRRR High Risk Rural Road

HRRRP High Risk Rural Road Program

HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program

LTAP Local Technical Assistance Program

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization

MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

RSA Roadway Safety Audit

STP Surface Transportation Program

TOWG Technical Oversight Working Group

USC United States Code

USDOT United States Department of Transportation

UW TOPS University of Wisconsin-Madison's Traffic Operations and Safety Laboratory

VMT

VPD

Vehicle Miles Traveled

Vehicles Per Day

Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... 1

1 Project Introduction and Rural Road Safety ................................................................................. 3

1.1 Project Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3

1.2 Rural Road Safety ......................................................................................................................... 3

2 Efforts to Address Fatality Rates .................................................................................................. 7

2.1 Federal Efforts - Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and High Risk Rural Road Program (HRRRP) ....................................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Local and State Efforts ................................................................................................................. 8

3 Research Methodology ............................................................................................................... 9

3.1 Technical Oversight Working Group ............................................................................................ 9 3.2 Literature Review ....................................................................................................................... 11 3.3 Survey of 50 State Departments of Transportation and Local Agencies ................................... 12

3.4 Categorizing Noteworthy Practices ........................................................................................... 14 3.5 Benefit-Cost Analysis of Noteworthy Practices ......................................................................... 14

4 Noteworthy Practices ................................................................................................................. 17

4.1 Intersection-Specific Infrastructure Safety Treatments ............................................................ 18

4.1.1 Install a roundabout .......................................................................................................... 18 4.1.2 Improve Horizontal Intersection Alignment ...................................................................... 18 4.1.3 Convert a Four-leg Intersection into Two Three-leg Intersections .................................... 19 4.1.4 Convert a Traditional Intersection into a J-Turn Intersection (Constraining Left Turn

Maneuvers From Minor Roads) ........................................................................................ 19 4.1.5 Install Left-Turn Lane ........................................................................................................ 19 4.1.6 Install Offset (or Channelized) Left-Turn Lane .................................................................. 20 4.1.7 Install Right-Turn Lane ...................................................................................................... 20 4.1.8 Install Bypass Lane ............................................................................................................ 20 4.1.9 Provide Flashing Beacons at Intersection Approaches ..................................................... 20 4.1.10 Provide Intersection Lighting ............................................................................................ 21 4.1.11 Install Acceleration or Deceleration Lanes ........................................................................ 21 4.1.12 Install Traffic Signals ......................................................................................................... 21 4.1.13 Install Dynamic Advanced Intersection Warning System ................................................. 22 4.1.14 Provide a Stop Bar on Minor-Road Approaches................................................................ 22 4.1.15 Relocate an Existing Stop Bar on Minor Approach ........................................................... 22 4.1.16 Change Horizontal and/or Vertical Alignment .................................................................. 22 4.1.17 Improve Sight Distance within Sight Triangle ................................................................... 23 4.1.18 Install Stop Ahead Pavement Markings ............................................................................ 23 4.1.19 Install a Splitter Island....................................................................................................... 23 4.1.20 Install Advanced Intersection Warning Signs .................................................................... 24 4.1.21 Convert Minor-Road Stop Control to All-Way Stop Control .............................................. 24

4.1.22 Channelization of Major and Minor Roads ....................................................................... 24 4.1.23 Use Raised Median to Restrict Turning Movements ......................................................... 24 4.1.24 Improve Sight Distance and Conspicuity at Railroad Grade Crossings ............................. 24 4.1.25 Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for Rural High Speed Signalized Approaches

.......................................................................................................................................... 25 4.1.26 Implement Lane Narrowing through Rumble Strips and Painted Median at Rural Stop-

Controlled Approaches ...................................................................................................... 25 4.1.27 Upgrade to Larger Stop Signs ........................................................................................... 25 4.1.28 Double Use of Stop Signs .................................................................................................. 25 4.1.29 Install Retro-reflective Strips on Sign Posts ....................................................................... 26 4.1.30 Provide Upcoming Road Names on Advanced Warning Signs .......................................... 26 4.1.31 Improve Traffic Signal Visibility (Larger Diameter Lens or Install Back Plate) .................. 26 4.1.32 Install Priority Control Systems for Emergency Vehicles ................................................... 26 4.1.33 Upgrade Passive Crossing Warning Devices to Active Warning Devices at Railroad

Crossings ........................................................................................................................... 27 4.1.34 Upgrade Existing Active Railroad Crossing Hardware and Warning Systems .................. 27 4.1.35 Remove an Existing Railroad Grade Crossing ................................................................... 27

4.2 Signing and Pavement Marking Safety Treatments .................................................................. 30 4.2.1 Install Curve Warning Signs .............................................................................................. 30 4.2.2 Install Chevron Signs ......................................................................................................... 31 4.2.3 Install/Upgrade Curve Warning Signs with Fluorescent Yellow Sheeting ......................... 31 4.2.4 Double Use of Advanced Warning Signs for Curves or Intersections ................................ 32 4.2.5 Install Edge Line Markings ................................................................................................ 32 4.2.6 Install Centerline Markings ............................................................................................... 32 4.2.7 Install Centerline and Edge Line Markings ........................................................................ 32 4.2.8 Install Raised Pavement Markers...................................................................................... 32 4.2.9 Install Post-Mounted Delineators at Horizontal Curves .................................................... 33 4.2.10 Install Wider Pavement Markings (With or Without Rumble Strips) ................................ 33 4.2.11 Install Icy Curve Warning System ...................................................................................... 33 4.2.12 Install Arrow Signs at Horizontal Curve Locations ............................................................ 33 4.2.13 Use of Supplemental Warning Signs ................................................................................. 34 4.2.14 Optical Speed Bars ............................................................................................................ 34

4.3 Pavement and Shoulder Resurfacing and Widening Infrastructure Safety Treatments ........... 36

4.3.1 Improve Pavement Friction/Increase Skid Resistance ...................................................... 36 4.3.2 Install the SafetyEdge ....................................................................................................... 37 4.3.3 Install Rumble Strips ......................................................................................................... 37 4.3.4 Widen Existing Travel Lanes by Two Feet or Less per Lane .............................................. 37 4.3.5 Add Paved Shoulder .......................................................................................................... 38 4.3.6 Improve Superelevation at Horizontal Curve Locations .................................................... 38 4.3.7 Install Passing or Climbing Lanes ...................................................................................... 38 4.3.8 Increase Shoulder Width ................................................................................................... 38 4.3.9 Install or Maintain a Graded Shoulder .............................................................................. 39 4.3.10 Install Targeted Longitudinal Rumble Strips at Key Locations (Such as on the Outside of

Horizontal Curves Only) .................................................................................................... 39

4.3.11 Regrade or Recondition Unpaved Roads .......................................................................... 39 4.3.12 Provide Turnout Areas ...................................................................................................... 39

4.4 Roadside Infrastructure Safety Treatments .............................................................................. 41

4.4.1 Create or Increase Clear Zone ........................................................................................... 41 4.4.2 Remove or Shield Obstacles in Clear Zone ........................................................................ 42 4.4.3 Flatten Road Sideslope ...................................................................................................... 42 4.4.4 Relocate Select Hazardous Utility Poles ............................................................................ 42 4.4.5 Improve Sight Distance by Maintaining Roadside Vegetation ......................................... 42 4.4.6 Convert Culvert Headwalls to Traversable End Treatments ............................................. 42 4.4.7 Modify End Treatments of Existing Guardrail ................................................................... 42 4.4.8 Install Concrete Median Barrier ........................................................................................ 42 4.4.9 Install Median Guardrail ................................................................................................... 43 4.4.10 Install Median Cable Barrier ............................................................................................. 43 4.4.11 Widen Existing Median or Construct Median ................................................................... 43 4.4.12 Install Impact Attenuation Devices at Select Roadside Hazard Locations (Such as Exposed

Bridge Columns) ................................................................................................................ 43 4.4.13 Remove Guardrail ............................................................................................................. 43 4.4.14 Construct Wildlife Fencing ................................................................................................ 43 4.4.15 Install or Modify Culverts to Accommodate Wildlife Crossing .......................................... 44

4.5 Capital Improvement Safety Treatments .................................................................................. 45 4.5.1 Install a Roundabout ......................................................................................................... 45 4.5.2 Improve Horizontal Intersection Alignment ...................................................................... 45 4.5.3 Convert a Four-leg Intersection into Two Three-leg Intersections .................................... 45 4.5.4 Reconstruct At-Grade Intersection to an Interchange ...................................................... 45 4.5.5 Modify Horizontal/Vertical Geometry .............................................................................. 46 4.5.6 Convert a Four-Lane Two-Way Road into a Three-Lane Road with One Lane in Each

Direction of Travel plus a Continuous Two-Way Left-Turn Lane (Road Diet).................... 46 4.5.7 Construct a Two-Way Left-Turn Lane ............................................................................... 46 4.5.8 Convert a Traditional Intersection into a J-Turn Intersection (Constraining Left Turn

Maneuvers From Minor Roads) ........................................................................................ 47 4.5.9 Remove Compound Horizontal Curves .............................................................................. 47 4.5.10 Mitigate Ground Water to Prevent Ponding and/or Icing ................................................ 47 4.5.11 Widen Functionally Obsolete Bridges ............................................................................... 47 4.5.12 Construct Wildlife Fencing ................................................................................................ 47 4.5.13 Install or Modify Culverts to Accommodate Wildlife Crossing .......................................... 47

4.6 Non-Motorized User Safety Treatments ................................................................................... 49 4.6.1 Construct Adjacent Shared-Use Paths .............................................................................. 49 4.6.2 Construct Shoulders for Non-Motorized Users ................................................................. 49 4.6.3 Construct Exclusive Bicycle Lanes...................................................................................... 50 4.6.4 Construct Bicycle Trail Grade Separation Structures ........................................................ 50 4.6.5 Construct Sidewalks .......................................................................................................... 50 4.6.6 Provide Crosswalks at Targeted Locations........................................................................ 50 4.6.7 Install Curb Extensions ...................................................................................................... 50

4.6.8 Install Pedestrian Signal Heads to Existing Signalized Intersections ................................ 51 4.6.9 Other Considerations for Non-Motorized Uses ................................................................. 51

4.7 Research on Treatments Currently Under Development .......................................................... 54

4.8 Non-Infrastructure Practices and Unique Agency Experiences ................................................. 58 4.9 Cost versus Cost-Effectiveness .................................................................................................. 59

5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 63

5.1 Next Steps .................................................................................................................................. 63

Appendix A - SAFETEA-LU and MAP-21 Legislation Related to HRRRs ................................................. 64

Appendix B - Comparison of SAFETEA-LU and MAP-21 Legislation ..................................................... 81

Appendix C - HRRR 2009 Set-Aside Amounts and Obligation Requirements under MAP-21 Special ....... Rule ........................................................................................................................................... 82

Appendix D - Survey Questions, Instructions, and Associated Definitions .......................................... 85

Appendix E - State and Local Agency Contacts ................................................................................... 99

Appendix F – Noteworthy Practices Detailed Cost Information ........................................................ 104

1

Executive Summary

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act requires the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a study and submit a Report to Congress describing the best practices for implementing cost effective roadway safety infrastructure improvements on high risk rural roadways. Fatality rates on rural roadways continue to outpace those of urban roadways. In 2010, although rural roadways accounted for only 33 percent of the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) they accounted for 55 percent of the fatalities.1 The rural fatality rate of 1.83 is 2.5 times higher than the urban fatality rate of 0.73.2

Table 1. 2010 Rural vs. Urban Comparison

Rural Urban VMT* Fatalities Fatality Rate** VMT* Fatalities Fatality Rate**

984,148 18,026 1.83 1,982,358 14,546 0.73 * In Millions ** Per 100 Million VMT Example: To obtain the rural fatality rate, 1.83=(18,026*100)/984,148

High risk rural roads are a subset of rural roads and are limited by definition to rural collectors and rural local roads. For example, rural roads also include Interstate highways and arterials but due to the definition those roadways are not included in the study and report. To identify cost-effective solutions, the report examines the cost-effectiveness of safety treatments deployed on high risk rural roadways.

Although all the treatments identified in this report have provided safety benefits to the various agencies that have used them, none of them are considered a recommended best-practice. The treatments are considered noteworthy practices because the best treatment for one location or agency may not be the best treatment for another location or agency. Each treatment identified should be evaluated for further analysis at a specific location prior to implementation.

Research and data were compiled and analyzed using several methods including:

• Consultation and feedback from State and local safety professionals through a Technical Oversight Working Group (TOWG) established specifically for this study and report

• A literature review • A user survey distributed to 50 State departments of transportation and 100 local

government transportation agencies which had a response rate of over 80 percent

The TOWG feedback and survey responses reflect real world examples and results of effective treatments. Based on the input from the TOWG of how agencies would prefer to identify safety treatments, the treatments are identified by roadway feature as opposed to crash type. The treatments are separated into categories described in Section 3.4.

1 National Highway Traffic Safety Association. FARS Encyclopedia. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx. Accessed March 4, 2013. 2 U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “Traffic Safety Facts 2010,” Rural and Urban Comparison 2010 Data. July 2012. Available at: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811637.pdf

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811637.pdf

2

In addition to the known treatments provided by the research and survey results, information was gathered on countermeasures currently under development or part of a research study. Typically, several years of data are needed to accurately identify the benefits of a safety treatment. With some of these treatments still in the developmental or testing stages, insufficient data were available resulting in several agencies unable to supply complete information needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of individual treatments. A complete list of the treatments for which a cost-effectiveness analysis was not completed appears in Section 4.7.

As part of this study, literature research and survey questions sought to identify the greatest challenges to implementing safety improvements on rural roads. Because local agencies own and operate approximately 80 percent of rural roadways3, their challenges are of particular importance. The following are some of the greatest obstacles facing local agencies:

• Lack of funds to implement projects or to match State or Federal programs • Lack of technical expertise to identify and select treatments • Lack of routine effective communication between the local agencies and the State DOTs • Local agencies are unfamiliar with the Federal-aid process or perceive it as too

cumbersome • Competition from the large number of local agencies for State or Federal funds makes it

difficult to secure funding

The next steps in this study include a noteworthy practices manual for selecting and installing cost-effective safety infrastructure improvements on high risk rural roads. Building off this report, that manual will provide not only the benefit-cost ratios for the noteworthy practices but also the initial costs and expected maintenance expenses. The TOWG revealed the importance of costs because a treatment with a high benefit-cost ratio is of limited value if the cost of the project is beyond the funding capability of the agency.

3 Ceifetz, Andrew H., P.E., et. al. Developing Safety Plans: A Manual for Local Rural Road Owners. March 2012. Available at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa12017/#introduction.

3

1 Project Introduction and Rural Road Safety 1.1 Project Introduction

This study and report are required under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). Under MAP-21 Section 1112(b), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is required to conduct a study of the best practices for implementing cost-effective roadway safety infrastructure improvements on high-risk rural roads (HRRR).

While the term “best practice” is used in the title of the report to match the MAP-21 legislation, it is difficult to declare one practice as “best” because it may be appropriate for a specific situation or agency. Instead, consider the practices cited in this report as “noteworthy practices” because what is best for one agency or situation may not be best for another. The treatments with the highest benefit-cost ratios (BCR) are not recommendations; rather they indicate the average effectiveness of the treatments after they were installed. The same level of effectiveness may not be realized when installed at every location due to the unique individual characteristics of each site.

As required by the legislation, this study includes a thorough literature review, consultation with State, local and private industry experts, and a survey of all 50 State DOTs and a representative sampling of 100 county and municipal agencies. The legislation requires that this report be submitted to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure no later than October 1, 2013. It also requires a guidance manual for use by State and local governments developed no later than April 1, 2014.

1.2 Rural Road Safety

According to the 2010 U.S. Census, 19 percent of the U.S. population lives in rural areas. Rural roadways accounted for only 33 percent of the vehicle miles traveled (VMT); however, rural fatalities account for 55 percent of all traffic fatalities in 2011. This equates to a rural fatality rate over 2.5 times higher than in urban areas.4 The following table depicts the total fatalities and VMT from 2002 to 2010.

4 U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “Traffic Safety Facts 2010,” Rural and Urban Comparison 2010 Data. July 2012. Available at: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811637.pdf

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811637.pdf

4

Table 2. Rural/Urban Vehicle Miles Traveled and Fatalities from 2002-2010

Year VMT by Functional System Motor Vehicle Fatalities Rural Urban National Rural Urban National VMT VMT VMT Fatalities Rate Fatalities Rate Fatalities Rate

(in millions)

2002 1,127,394 1,728,114 2,855,508 25,896 2.30 17,013 0.98 43,005 1.51 2003 1,084,443 1,805,778 2,890,221 24,957 2.30 17,783 0.98 42,884 1.48 2004 1,068,426 1,896,362 2,964,788 25,179 2.36 17,581 0.93 42,836 1.44 2005 1,032,146 1,957,004 2,989,430 24,587 2.38 18,627 0.95 43,510 1.46 2006 1,037,146 1,977,225 3,014,371 23,646 2.28 18,791 0.95 42,708 1.42 2007 1,032,790 1,988,334 3,031,124 23,254 2.25 17,908 0.90 41,259 1.36 2008 988,235 1,988,293 2,976,528 20,987 2.12 16,218 0.82 37,423 1.26 2009 982,180 1,974,583 2,956,764 19,323 1.97 14,501 0.73 33,883 1.15 2010 984,148 1,982,358 2,966,506 18,026 1.83 14,546 0.73 32,999 1.11

The higher rural fatality rate is the result of:

• The physical characteristics of the roadways • The challenges of identifying safety countermeasures due in part to the limited data

available and varying levels of expertise of local agencies • Behavioral issues such as higher speeds, reduced seat-belt use, and higher rates of

impaired driving5 • Increased Emergency Medical Services response time to incidents

Many rural roadways on both the State and local system lack shoulders and clear zones that provide an area of recovery for roadway departures, which is the most prevalent crash type on these roadways.

Nearly 80 percent of the rural roadways are owned and operated by local entities.6 As of 2012, there were 89,004 local government units in the United States7 that vary in the size of the engineering staff and their sophistication in making safety decisions on these rural roads. The financial responsibility for many improvements and safety treatments are borne by the local jurisdiction, and competing community priorities may affect investment in repairs and upgrades.

In conducting the research for the development of the guidance titled Implementing the High Risk Rural Roads Program, participating agencies were asked the question, “In some cases,

5 Chandler, B. and R. Anderson, “Implementing the High Risk Rural Roads Program,” March 2010. Available at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa10012/fhwasa10012.pdf 6 Ceifetz, Andrew H., P.E., et. al. Developing Safety Plans: A Manual for Local Rural Road Owners. March 2012. Available at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa12017/fhwasa12017.pdf 7 U.S. Census Bureau. 2012 Census of Governments. July 2012 Available at: http://www2.census.gov/govs/cog/2012/formatted_prelim_counts_23jul2012_2.pdf

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa10012/fhwasa10012.pdf


http://www2.census.gov/govs/cog/2012/formatted_prelim_counts_23jul2012_2.pdf

5

candidate infrastructure treatments may not be selected due to perceived constraints in acquiring or deploying the treatments. Which challenges apply in your agency (check all that apply)?”8 Local agencies overwhelmingly responded that funding constraints applied to them, with a lack of technical experience as the second most cited constraint. Figure 1 displays the responses to this question.

Figure 1. Agency Challenges to Participation in the HRRRP

This report provides information on cost effective solutions for treatments when an agency may not have the technical expertise on rural road safety or when an agency has to maximize the efficiency of their limited funds.

In addition to lack of expertise and limited funding, other issues affect local agencies’ ability to improve safety on rural roads. They are not included in the scope of the report, but were identified during the research. They include:

• Due to the large number of local jurisdictions within each State, there are numerous local agencies competing for the same State or Federal funds.

8 FHWA, Implementing the High Risk Rural Roads Program, “Chapter 4. State Practices for Implementation,” FHWA-SA-10-012 (Washington, DC: March 2010). Available at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa10012

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Lack ofexperience

Works withother

agencies

Lack offunding

Do not useFederalfunding

Other Do notknow

Notapplicable

Num

ber o

f Res

pons

es

Agency Challenges

State

Local

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa10012

6

• State and local agencies have found it difficult to implement projects on HRRRs. From discussions between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the States, the complication of funding local projects was noted as one of the more significant obstacles.

Local agencies are often structured differently than the State DOT and may not have a dedicated safety program with funding or dedicated staff. Additionally, these agencies are generally unfamiliar with the requirements of the State's Federal-aid funding application process. In many cases, local agencies are not well-versed in the procurement process and may not have an understanding of the Federal requirements related to construction. Their limited funding constrains their ability to provide the required matching funds of the Federal or State program.

The FHWA delegates responsibility to the State DOTs for the oversight of local agencies using Federal funds. Some States struggle with this role if communication, outreach, and coordination between the local agency and the State DOT are not well-established. However, this is not always the case, as some State and local agencies have successfully established a process of administering projects locally.

• Some rural roads are owned and/or operated by the Federal Land Management Agencies (including Bureau of Indian Affairs, Forest Service, Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, etc.). These agencies compete with State and local governments for State funding if they choose to apply for State-administered funds. Although they may be eligible for the same State and Federal funding as local agencies, the lack of data and other issues may prevent them from obtaining funding.

7

2 Efforts to Address Fatality Rates 2.1 Federal Efforts - Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and High Risk

Rural Road Program (HRRRP)

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) began with the Highway Safety Act of 19739 and was later consolidated into the Railway-Highway Crossings Program10 and the Hazard Elimination Program.11 The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 199112 later funded these programs as part of the Surface Transportation Program (STP) under which 10 percent of the States' STP funds were set aside for these programs. The program continued with set-aside funding from the STP through Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 until Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA:LU) established the HSIP as a core Federal-aid funding program.

As part of the HSIP, SAFETEA-LU introduced a set-aside provision, the HRRRP. The HRRRP provided $90 million as an annual set-aside from a State’s HSIP apportionment. The HRRRP was developed to help States implement solutions on the lower functional classes of rural roadways, a segment of the system often overlooked. There has been varying success in the use of HRRRP funds since their inception. As of the end of the second quarter of FY 2013, the overall obligation rate for the HRRRP was 63.5 percent. The range of obligation rates for individual States varies from 0 percent for Idaho and South Dakota up to 100 percent for Montana.

The MAP-21 removes the HRRRP set-aside provision and also revised the definition of "High Risk Rural Road," but continues the inclusion of construction and operational improvements on HRRRs as an eligible HSIP project. While the $90 million set-aside for HRRR was not continued, MAP-21 contains a special rule13 requiring obligation of funds for HRRR projects if the fatality rate on rural roads in a State is increasing. If the special rule applies to a State for a fiscal year, it must obligate projects on HRRRs of an amount equal to at least 200 percent of the amount of funds the State received for FY 2009 for the HRRRP.14 Appendix C shows the amount of HRRR set aside funds for each State in 2009, and how much must be obligated if the HRRR Special Rule applies.

9 Title 23 of Public Law No. 93-87. 10 23 U.S.C. 130. 11 23 U.S.C. 152. 12 Public Law No. 102-240 13 23 U.S.C. 148(g)(1) 14 FHWA, “Highway Safety Improvement Program, MAP-21 High Risk Rural Roads Guidance.”

8

2.2 Local and State Efforts

Nearly 80 percent of HRRRs are found on the locally owned road system.15,16 Therefore, it is important to establish effective means of communication and coordination between the local agencies and State DOTs so that local agencies can engage the State DOTs to best target State and Federal funds on HRRRs. Coordination between State and local agencies has taken the form of providing support to local government agency staffs to learn about available funds for HRRRs and consider participation. The HRRR training and technical workshops covering low-cost safety improvements and HSIP processes have also supported HRRR efforts.

Several States and local agencies developed innovative contracting strategies to utilize funding quickly and efficiently on high risk rural roads. These agencies have:

• Used public forces for labor and bulk materials purchases to more efficiently use funds on HRRRs.

• Initiated on-call contracts that have decreased the amount of time that elapses between project selection and completion.

• Augmented DOT staffing with outside resources for data analysis, problem identification, project selection, and administration.17

• Used special coordinators at the State DOT district and local level. • Maintained Web sites with helpful HRRR-related information for locals. • Used Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) centers to support coordination efforts

between the State, local, and tribal governments.18

15 Ceifetz, Andrew H., P.E., et. al. Developing Safety Plans: A Manual for Local Rural Road Owners. March 2012. Available at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa12017/#introduction. 16 Some States, however, have very few locally owned roadways, for example: In Missouri, North Carolina, and South Carolina, most roadways are on the State system. 17 FHWA, Implementing the High Risk Rural Roads Program, “Chapter 4. State Practices for Implementation,” FHWA-SA-10-012 (Washington, DC: March 2010). Available at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa10012/chap_4.cfm 18 In each State, a LTAP center and/or a Tribal Technical Assistance Program Center can provide technical information and training for local governments and agencies that own and maintain public roads. These centers are partially funded by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and provide resources to local agencies and tribal governments.

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa10012/chap_4.cfm

9

3 Research Methodology Although MAP-21 provides a new HRRR definition, this report uses the HRRR definition provided under SAFETEA-LU. The survey and research were conducted before the new definition could be established by States; therefore, the data reflects treatments based on the previous HRRR definition.

In some cases, there may be noteworthy safety treatments identified in the study that were not on a HRRR. For example, a roadway may have been identified as the same functional classification as HRRRs (rural major collector, rural minor collector, or rural local road); however, it was unknown if the roadway met the crash-related criteria from the HRRR definition in SAFETEA-LU. Some agencies, particularly at the local level, did not know which of their roadways were considered HRRRP-eligible, which created a hurdle in data collection. Therefore, the study included a request for information about countermeasures on non-HRRRs, provided they were applied to rural major or minor collectors, or rural local roads.

It should also be noted that several agencies identified treatments used on HRRRs even though they may be seen as safety treatments used in urban areas. In these cases, the functional classification of a HRRR did not change when the road passed through a small city or town and was still classified as rural. Technically they still meet the definition of a treatment on a HRRR and were included in this study with relevant notes under the details for those treatments.

Noteworthy practices on HRRRs were identified and analyzed through several research methods that included the following:

• Consultation with State and local safety professionals through a Technical Oversight Working Group (TOWG) consisting of nine transportation professionals representing a cross section of the country;

• Extensive literature review; and • Input from State and local safety professionals through a user survey. The survey

was distributed to 50 State DOTs and 100 local government transportation agencies.

Agencies indicated that they would benefit from being able to select a treatment based on the roadway features on HRRRs as opposed to the crash type or roadway user. As a result, the safety treatments are organized into six categories grouped by roadway feature.

3.1 Technical Oversight Working Group

A TOWG was assembled to help provide resource identification, challenges, definitions, and direction for gathering information for this report. The TOWG consists of safety experts representing Federal, State, local, tribal, and private sector interests related to HRRR safety concerns. The representatives were selected based on their ability to bring the value of

10

various user perspectives and expertise to the study. Their participation consisted of key input and feedback used to make the document technically sound. The TOWG membership includes the participants shown in Table 3:

Table 3. Technical Oversight Working Group Membership

TOWG Members AGENCY

Joseph Bonga Division of Transportation

Bureau of Indian Affairs NW Regional Office D51

Joe Marek Traffic Engineer

Clackamas County, Oregon

Richie Beyer County Engineer

Elmore County, Alabama

Chuck Reider Chief Safety Engineer

Nevada Department of Transportation

Matthew Enders Local Programs Technical Services Manager

Washington State Department of Transportation

Dave Brand Chairman

National Association of County Engineers’ Sub-Committee on Safety

Marie Walsh Chairman

National Local Technical Assistance Program Association’s Safety Committee

Greg Parker Chairman

American Public Works Association’s Road Safety Subcommittee

Brian Roberts Executive Director

National Association of County Engineers

Jim Dahlem Office of Safety

Federal Highway Administration

Rosemarie Anderson Office of Safety


Erin Kenley Office of Safety


During the initial meeting, the TOWG discussed definitions for “Best Practice,” “Noteworthy Practice,” “Cost-Effective,” and “High Risk Rural Road.” The group’s discussion helped define practical differences between how State and local agencies identify HRRRs, determine potential solutions, apply or implement the treatments, and evaluate effectiveness. The TOWG played a crucial role in identifying resources to review and provided contact information for local agencies that have implemented noteworthy practices on HRRRs for use in the survey.

11

3.2 Literature Review

Components of the literature review included a list of treatments; appropriate applications of the treatments; and known performance information for identified treatments including cost, life cycle, maintenance, safety effectiveness, and existing cost-benefit analyses.

The literature review included information obtained from a variety of resources, including but not limited to:

• Rural Highway Safety Clearinghouse; • The National Association of Counties Rural Road Safety Project and Resource

Center; • Local Technical Assistance Programs (LTAP); • FHWA publications including Safety Evaluation of Improved Curve Delineation,

Implementing the High Risk Rural Roads Program, and Desktop Reference for Crash Reduction Factors;

• FHWA Crash Modification Factors (CMF)19 Clearinghouse; • FHWA’s Public Roads magazine; • FHWA’s Roadway Safety Noteworthy Practices Database; • American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

Highway Safety Manual; • Arizona DOT’s Tribal Traffic Safety Funding Guide; and • Annual HSIP reports.

In addition to identifying HRRR safety infrastructure treatments and documenting the benefit-cost ratio, the literature review also identified the unique experiences of various agencies including treatment selection, funding, specifications, and implementation. The literature also identified experimental treatments and innovative implementation methods that have not been evaluated for effectiveness; for example, most jurisdictions confine the use of the SafetyEdgeSM to asphalt roadways on rural two-lane and multilane facilities, yet some agencies have elected to apply this same treatment to all new shoulder-based construction, including concrete pavement sections. This type of hands-on information was obtained from the published

19 A crash modification factor (CMF) is a multiplicative factor used to compute the expected number of crashes after implementing a given countermeasure at a specific site. For example, an intersection is experiencing 100 angle crashes and 500 rear-end crashes per year. If a countermeasure is applied that has a CMF of 0.80 for angle crashes, following the implementation of the countermeasure, 80 angle crashes per year (100 x 0.80 = 80) can be expected. If the same countermeasure also has a CMF of 1.10 for rear-end crashes, following the countermeasure, 550 rear-end crashes per year (500 x 1.10 = 550) can be expected. See FHWA, Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse, “About CMF” at: http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/about.cfm.

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/about.cfm

12

literature and a select number of follow-up conversations with stakeholders who have used unique or innovative treatment applications.

3.3 Survey of 50 State Departments of Transportation and Local Agencies

The FHWA developed an online survey and sent it to all 50 State DOTs and 100 local agencies to gather data on treatments at HRRR locations. The survey was intended to gain data and real-world experiences on safety improvement efforts from a diverse group of agencies.

To increase the response rates and quality of data a random selection of local agencies was not used. Many local agencies do not have HRRRs and would not be able to provide any useful feedback. Instead, a targeted group of 100 agencies experienced in HRRRs were identified with a goal of geographic distribution. The TOWG and State DOT contacts provided input on local agencies that have implemented projects on HRRRs. Because most cities and towns do not have rural roads, the local agencies surveyed were largely counties; however, some municipal and tribal agencies were surveyed.

The complete list of State and local agency contacts who received a survey invitation is available in Appendix E.

To facilitate a quick and efficient response to the survey by respondents, the research team used an online survey tool, Qualtrics.20 This tool allowed for a mix of question types. For example:

• forced choice multiple choice, open ended, and rankings • question branches based on responses to previous questions • ability to require responses to questions for survey completion • ability to allow respondents to save their responses, exit, and return • instant capture of data and quick turnaround of the summary report

The survey included questions related to the following:

• Type of agency; • Agency use of various treatments at HRRR locations including which treatments they

rank the highest and most effective; • Costs associated with installation and maintenance of the treatments; • Regional crash reduction factors or crash modification factors, and promising

treatments not yet quantified; • How the agency assesses safety; and

20 https://www.qualtrics.com/why-survey-software

https://www.qualtrics.com/why-survey-software

13

Response by Type of Agency* State DOT only At least one local agency** State DOT and at least one local agency**

* The agencies didn’t include their agency type or name are not represented on this map ** Local agency includes county, city, town, or tribal government

• What type of performance measures are typically used for these safety assessments.

The survey questions, associated instructions, and definitions used to solicit agency response are available in Appendix D.

In all, the response rate was over 80 percent for the survey. Not all respondents designated their agency type. However, of those that did, there were responses from 78 local agencies and 2 tribal governments. The responses represented nearly every State. Figure 2 shows the distribution of responses by agency type.

Of the local agencies that responded, 32 percent replied that their agency has a dedicated safety program, and 61 percent of local agencies indicated they have a staff member or members who are primarily responsible for the oversight of safety improvements or

Figure 2. Survey Response by Agency Type

14

maintenance of the improvements. Because the local agencies surveyed were generally targeted for their experience in implementing safety treatments on HRRRs, the percentage of local agencies indicating they have a dedicated safety program or safety staffing is higher than would be expected if the survey responses were composed of random local agencies

3.4 Categorizing Noteworthy Practices

Feedback from the TOWG indicated that agencies would prefer to select treatments based on roadway feature type as opposed to crash type. Based on this, the treatments were divided into the following six categories:

1. Intersection-Specific Infrastructure Safety Treatments a. Specific Safety Treatments for Signalized Intersections b. Specific Safety Treatments for Four-Leg Approach Stop-controlled

Intersections c. Specific Safety Treatments for Three-Leg Approach Stop-controlled

Intersections 2. Signing and Pavement Marking Safety Treatments 3. Pavement and Shoulder Resurfacing and Widening Infrastructure Safety Treatments 4. Roadside Infrastructure Safety Treatments 5. Capital Improvement Safety Treatments 6. Non-Motorized User Safety Treatments

With the wide range of treatments available, these six categories were identified as a means to group, analyze, and compare countermeasures affecting similar treatment application areas.

3.5 Benefit-Cost Analysis of Noteworthy Practices

Based on information obtained during the literature review task and further supported by feedback from the user survey, FHWA performed a benefit-cost analysis (BCA) for the HRRR infrastructure safety improvements identified during the literature review and user survey. The FHWA developed a BCR using the financial cost of crashes compared to implementation and maintenance costs of the treatments. The analysis included in this study used the total, fatal plus injury, and property damage only (PDO) crashes as indicators for treatment effectiveness. The costs associated with injury severity, for the purposes of this analysis, are shown in Table 4 and correspond to the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) for predicted injury crashes based on the Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) of $9.1 million for a base year of 2012. The values are consistent with the USDOT’s guidance on the treatment of the VSL in USDOT analyses.21

15

Table 4. Value of Fatalities and Injuries21

AIS Level Severity Fraction of

VSL Equivalent

Value (2012$)

AIS 1 Minor 0.003 $27,300 AIS 2 Moderate 0.047 $427,700 AIS 3 Serious 0.105 $955,500 AIS 4 Severe 0.266 $2,420,600 AIS 5 Critical 0.593 $5,396,300 AIS 6 Unsurvivable 1.000 $9,100,000

Prior to performing the BCA, several assumptions and preliminary calculations are necessary. These include:

• Developing traffic volume projections using growth percentage22 • Estimating the reduction in the number and type of crashes for each year extending

throughout the service life for the facility based on the research and survey results • Estimating a typical installation and maintenance costs for the individual treatments

based on the research and survey results • Estimating the discount rate for the net present value23 • Estimating the future value of VSL based on a 1.07 percent per year growth • Convert AIS injury costs to KABCO equivalents using conversion techniques as

outlined in the TIGER Benefit-Cost Resource Guide24 • For total cost evaluation, base the cost of property-damage-only (PDO) crashes on the

2010 base year cost of $3,206 per vehicle as outlined in the TIGER Guide and

21 USDOT, “Guidance on Treatment of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life,” http://www.dot.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/guidance-treatment-economic-value-statistical-life 22 In recent year rural roads volumes have grown slower than urban roadways. This analysis uses of a growth rate of 2 percent and represents a constant moderate growth rate. 23 The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recommends using a discount rate of 7 percent for Federal programs. However, for road improvements, a value often used by State agencies and as represented in the HSM is 4 percent. It is recognized that different agencies use different discount rates. Inflation rates from 2003 to 2013 have been significantly less than 7 percent. For the purposes of the HRRR analysis, therefore, the BCRs reflect a rate of 4 percent. For the manual, more information on the discount rate will be provided with a possible comparison between an agency’s preferred discount rate with the OMB recommended rate of 7 percent. 24 USDOT, TIGER Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) Resource Guide, Washington, DC: Updated May 22, 2013. Available at: http://www.dot.gov/policy-initiatives/tiger/tiger-bca-resource-guide#

16

projected to a 2012 base year assuming 1.75 vehicles per PDO crash based on historically observed PDO trends25

A BCR value greater than 1.0 reflects a positive return on investment. For example, a BCR of 2.5 suggests that for every one dollar spent, a $2.50 safety benefit can be expected. However, a BCR value of less than one but greater than zero still provides a net safety benefit, but does not represent a positive return on investment based on the values in Table 4.

Additional cost-effectiveness metrics were generated including the annualized net benefit (annual benefit minus annual cost) as well as costs per crash conditions. This latter method helps to better estimate how much cost is required to avoid a crash. Appendix F of this report includes summary tables that identify these cost-effectiveness metrics for the individual treatments that could be analyzed.

During the evaluation of treatments, there were several identified treatments for which safety benefits appeared promising but are not yet known because they are relatively new or under development. These treatments appear in Section 4.7 and are characterized as promising treatments that require future evaluation before a BCA can be accomplished.

25 NHTSA, “Table 3, Incidence Summary,”The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2000, DOT-HS-809-446,Washington, DC: May 2002). Available at: http://www.nhtsa.gov/Driving+Safety/The+Economic+Impact+of+Motor+Vehicle+Crashes+2000

17

4 Noteworthy Practices This section describes the noteworthy practices used on HRRRs that were identified during the literature review and the survey of State, local, and tribal agencies. In some cases, a treatment may appear in more than one category. At the end of each section, the BCR ratio information is provided for each treatment where information was available. The cost-effectiveness of each treatment is sorted by those attributed to moderate and lower volume HRRRs. The noteworthy practices are separated by section under the following categories:

1. Intersection-Specific Infrastructure Safety Treatments a. Specific Safety Treatments for Signalized Intersections b. Specific Safety Treatments for Four-Leg Stop-controlled Intersections c. Specific Safety Treatments for Three-Leg Stop-controlled Intersections

2. Signing and Pavement Marking Safety Treatments 3. Pavement and Shoulder Resurfacing and Widening Infrastructure Safety Treatments 4. Roadside Infrastructure Safety Treatments 5. Capital Improvement Safety Treatments 6. Non-Motorized User Safety Treatments

There were several practices identified that have the potential to increase safety on HRRRs, but insufficient information was provided to make a determination on cost-effectiveness. A cost-effectiveness assessment can only be completed if the data required to determine benefits and costs is available.

In many cases, a variety of research efforts have determined that a treatment would reduce crashes. Although the percent of crash reduction has varied, in most cases, the treatments exhibited similar crash reduction trends. The cost-effectiveness could not be determined for some of the newer treatments or treatments for which the safety effect was difficult to quantify, not yet available, or suggested conflicting safety effects.

It should be noted that this report, and the noteworthy practices listed in this section, are not intended to be used as a design guide for practitioners and/or local governments. This report identifies various treatments that may be used where there is a safety hazard; however, it is not an exhaustive list of potential treatments. In addition, each treatment identified should be evaluated for further analysis at a specific location prior to implementation. A manual will be developed and published as part of the legislative requirements and made available to the public by April 1, 2014.

18

Figure 3. Rural Roundabout

Figure 4. Example of a Realigned Intersection

4.1 Intersection-Specific Infrastructure Safety Treatments

Intersection-specific safety treatments assist drivers in recognizing they are at or approaching intersecting routes, provide storage for turning traffic26, and give positive guidance to motorists through the intersection. Improvements cited in this section also include Railway-Highway Grade Crossing treatments.

4.1.1 Install a roundabout

The modern roundabout is a type of circular intersection defined by the basic operational principle of entering traffic yielding to vehicles on the circulatory roadway and certain key design principles to achieve deflection of entering traffic by channelization at the entrance and deflection around a center island.27 They can be used on both rural and urban roadways as an effective way to improve safety. Roundabout intersections eliminate a number of vehicle conflict points typically associated with traditional intersections. Roundabouts also enhance safety by reducing vehicle speeds through the intersection and by changing the crash type from angle to sideswipe, which typically results in less severe crashes.28

4.1.2 Improve Horizontal Intersection Alignment

Reducing or eliminating the skew at rural intersection approaches helps address problems like vehicle alignment, long exposure in the intersection, and potential driver confusion. Intersection skew treatments include pavement markings, channelizing islands, and realignment.29

26 Turn lane storage is the length of turn lane provided based on anticipated traffic needs. 27 FHWA, “Guidance Memorandum on Consideration and Implementation of Proven Safety Countermeasures,” July 2010. Available at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/memo071008/ 28 FHWA, “Intersection Safety Case Study,” Minnesota Roundabout – A Scott County Success Story. Available at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/resources/casestudies/fhwasa09013/ 29 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa1108/fhwasa1108.pdf

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/memo071008/#safety_edge

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/resources/casestudies/fhwasa09013/


19

Figure 5. J-Turn Intersection Diagram (Minnesota Department of Transportation)

4.1.3 Convert a Four-leg Intersection into Two Three-leg Intersections

For some four-leg rural intersections with very low through volumes on the cross street, one method of improving safety may be to convert the intersection to two T-intersections. This conversion to two T-intersections can be accomplished by realigning the two cross-street approaches an appreciable distance along the major road, thus creating separate intersections that operate relatively independently of one another.30

4.1.4 Convert a Traditional Intersection into a J-Turn Intersection (Constraining Left Turn Maneuvers From Minor Roads)

The J-Turn intersection (also known as Superstreet) allows left turn movements off of the main road but prohibits left-turn and through movements from side street approaches. The J-Turn intersection accommodates these movements by requiring drivers to turn right onto the main road and then make a U-Turn maneuver at a one-way median opening 400 to 1,000 feet after the intersection. Left turn movements from the major road could also be removed at primarily rural unsignalized J-Turn designs.31 This type of intersection conversion would usually be applied to the higher functional classification of HRRRs (rural major collector) and can be used effectively in rural areas.

4.1.5 Install Left-Turn Lane Left-turn lanes are auxiliary lanes for storage or speed change of left turning vehicles.32 Installing left-turn lanes at a rural intersection can reduce rear-end crashes by allowing vehicles to proceed through the intersection without having to stop or slow down for vehicles waiting to make a left turn.33

30 FHWA. Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide. 2004. 31 FHWA. Restricted Crossing U-Turn Intersection. FHWA-HRT-09-059. 2009. 32 FHWA, “Guidance Memorandum on Consideration and Implementation of Proven Safety Countermeasures,” July 10, 2008. Available at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/memo071008/#turn_lanes 33 FHWA, Intersection Safety: A Manual for Local Rural Road Owners, FHWA-SA-11-08 (Washington, DC: January 2011). Available at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa1108/fhwasa1108.pdf

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/memo071008/#turn_lanes


20

Figure 7. Flashing Beacon Installed on Stop Sign

4.1.6 Install Offset (or Channelized) Left-Turn Lane

Channelized left-turn lanes in rural locations provide the left turning motorist a line of sight to opposing through vehicles. Instead of attempting to look around opposing left-turning vehicles, the motorist can clearly see oncoming traffic.

4.1.7 Install Right- Turn Lane

Providing a right-turn lane at a rural intersection can reduce rear-end crashes by allowing vehicles to proceed through the intersection without having to stop or slow down for vehicles making a right turn. Assuming turn lanes are of adequate length, vehicles will not be stopped in the travel lanes; this allows through-traffic to continue without stopping for vehicles turning at an intersection.

4.1.8 Install Bypass Lane

Installation of this treatment on rural roads can be accomplished by adding bypass lanes using the shoulder at T-Intersections. The bypass lanes are intended for vehicles to continue through the intersection without having to stop for traffic making left turns.

4.1.9 Provide Flashing Beacons at Intersection Approaches

Flashing beacons provide a visible signal, especially in rural areas without many other lights, to the presence of an intersection and can be very effective in rural areas where there may be long stretches between intersections as well as locations where nighttime visibility of intersections is an issue.34

34 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa1108/ch4.cfm

Figure 6. Offset Left-Turn Lane Design

http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&biw=1920&bih=878&tbm=isch&tbnid=r4MCW7ptapp8LM:&imgrefurl=http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/08044/index.cfm&docid=L16tsAHvF3aVdM&imgurl=http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/08044/images/08044_image019.jpg&w=278&h=297&ei=EBgxUeERyuzSAYHrgMAF&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=1656&vpy=101&dur=2093&hovh=232&hovw=217&tx=151&ty=123&sig=109212664129537178464&page=1&tbnh=130&tbnw=129&start=0&ndsp=55&ved=1t:429,r:9,s:0,i:107

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa1108/ch4.cfm

21

4.1.10 Provide Intersection Lighting

Many intersection crashes occurring during late-night and early-morning hours result from poor visibility, resulting in drivers being unable to see conflicting traffic, other road users, or–specifically in the case of unsignalized intersections–the presence of the intersection itself. At night in rural areas, the only source of lighting for roadways is often provided by vehicle headlights. Roadway lighting allows for greater visibility of the intersection, which makes the intersection more conspicuous to motorists and provides aid in helping drivers determine their paths through the intersection by making signs and markings more visible.

4.1.11 Install Acceleration or Deceleration Lanes

Drivers turning onto a HRRR require time to accelerate until they approach the desired open-road speed. When acceleration by entering traffic takes place directly on the traveled way, it may disrupt the flow of through-traffic. To minimize this operational problem due to right- or left-turning traffic at divided highway intersections, acceleration lanes may be used.

An acceleration lane is an auxiliary or speed-change lane that allows vehicles to accelerate to highway speeds before entering the through-traffic lanes of a highway. Acceleration lanes should be of sufficient length to permit adjustments in speeds of both through and entering vehicles so that the driver of the entering vehicle can and maneuver into that gap before reaching the end of the acceleration lane.35

Additionally, the purpose of a parallel deceleration lane is to provide drivers exiting or turning from the road with an opportunity to slow down to a more reasonable speed prior to turning.

4.1.12 Install Traffic Signals

Traffic signals help to assign right-of-way to traffic movements and have been shown to reduce the severity of total collisions experienced at intersections on HRRRs. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) lists eight warrants for the placement of traffic signals, which should be reviewed as installation of this countermeasure is considered. The safety benefit of signalizing a rural intersection is a function of the crash history by crash type, the traffic entering the intersection on the major and minor approaches, and whether the intersection is a 3-legged T-Intersection or a conventional 4-legged intersection.36

35 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/resources/intsafestratbro/ub9.cfm 36 Harkey, Srinivasan, Baek, Council, Eccles, Lefler, Gross, Persaud, Lyon, Hauer, Bonneson. NCHRP 617: Accident Modification Factors for Traffic Engineering and ITS Improvements. 2008.

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/resources/intsafestratbro/ub9.cfm

22

4.1.13 Install Dynamic Advanced Intersection Warning System

Infrastructure-based Intelligent Transportation System technologies can be used to significantly improve the safety at stop-controlled intersections on HRRRs. These systems provide enhanced safety warning information for approaching drivers compared to passive warning systems. A dynamic advanced intersection warning system can provide:

• Enhanced warning to the through driver of a vehicle on a crossroad stop approach that may enter the intersection;

• Enhanced warning to drivers approaching a stop approach that their trajectory speed is high and that they may run the Stop sign;

• Enhanced warning to through drivers that they are traveling at too-high an intersection entry speed and advising them to slow down; and

• Enhanced warning to drivers on the stop approach of entering vehicles on the through approach, inferring potential unsafe gaps.37

4.1.14 Provide a Stop Bar on Minor-Road Approaches

Providing visible stop bars on minor-road approaches at unsignalized intersections on HRRRs can help direct the attention of drivers to the presence of the intersection.38

4.1.15 Relocate an Existing Stop Bar on Minor Approach

A minor approach to a HRRR may have an existing Stop bar that is located where vehicles stopping at the bar have limited sight distance at the intersection. The Stop bar may be relocated toward the intersection to where the stopped vehicle would have better sight distance of approaching traffic.

4.1.16 Change Horizontal and/or Vertical Alignment

Although changing alignment is a high-cost treatment, in some cases sight distance is restricted by horizontal and vertical curvature. Straightening an HRRR will increase sight distance and allow for better visibility of other vehicles and the intersection itself.39

37 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/resources/fhwasa11015/sa11015.cfm 38 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa1108/fhwasa1108.pdf 39 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa1108/fhwasa1108.pdf

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/resources/fhwasa11015/sa11015.cfm



23

Figure 9. Stop Ahead Pavement Markings on a Rural Road.

Figure 8. Example of Changes to Vertical Alignment.

4.1.17 Improve Sight Distance within Sight Triangle

By removing sight distance restrictions (e.g., vegetation, parked vehicles, signs, buildings) from the sight triangles at stop- or yield-controlled intersection approaches on HRRRs, drivers will be able see approaching vehicles on the main line without obstruction and, therefore, make better decisions about entering the intersection safely.40

4.1.18 Install Stop Ahead Pavement Markings

Providing pavement markings on HRRRs with supplementary messages (such as Stop Ahead) can help alert drivers on the stop-controlled approach to the presence of an intersection. An example of a Stop Ahead pavement marking is shown in Figure 9.41

4.1.19 Install a Splitter Island

A splitter islands separates traffic moving in opposite directions of travel. Splitter islands on the minor-roads separate turning vehicles on the through road and vehicles stopped on a minor-road approach. In addition, the installation of splitter islands allows for the addition of a Stop sign in the median to make the intersection more conspicuous.42

40 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa1108/fhwasa1108.pdf 41 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/08045/index.cfm 42 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa1108/fhwasa1108.pdf

Figure 10. Splitter Island


http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/08045/index.cfm


24

4.1.20 Install Advanced Intersection Warning Signs

Advanced intersection warning signs can help alert drivers to the upcoming presence of an intersection. Signs can be placed with sufficient distance prior to the intersection to allow drivers to perceive and react and can be installed on both sides of the roadway to solicit greater awareness, especially on rural roads with a large spacing between intersections.

4.1.21 Convert Minor-Road Stop Control to All-Way Stop Control

At locations where there is a pattern of high-severity frontal-impact crashes, all ‐way stop control on a HRRR can be implemented quickly by installing Stop signs on the unrestricted approach.43 It is important to ensure adequate sight distance for all stop conditions and to consult the MUTCD for proper use of all-way stop control as not all situations warrant the use.

4.1.22 Channelization of Major-and Mino-Roads

The installation of channelizing separator islands at stop-controlled intersection approaches can accommodate redundancy of the Stop sign and increase driver-compliance with the Stop sign.44

4.1.23 Use Raised Median to Restrict Turning Movements

Raised medians can be helpful in limiting access and restricting turning movements within the functional limits of intersections on HRRRs, thereby reducing conflicts between through traffic and turning vehicles.

4.1.24 Improve Sight Distance and Conspicuity at Railroad Grade Crossings

Where passive warning devices are used at railroad crossings on HRRRs, improvements in vertical alignment or through removing vegetation and other obstructions can help provide increased sight distance. Conspicuity of the intersection may be helped by providing brighter sign sheeting or upgrading to larger signs.

43 North Carolina Department of Transportation. Evaluation of the Conversion of Two-Way Stop Control to All-Way Stop Control at 53 Locations Statewide. March 2010. https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Safety%20Evaluation%20Completed%20Projects/AllWayPresentationWithNotes_FINAL.pdf 44 FHWA. Two Low-Cost Safety Concepts for Two-Way Stop-Controlled, Rural Intersections on High-Speed Two-Lane, Two-Way Roadways. 2008. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/08063/.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Safety%20Evaluation%20Completed%20Projects/AllWayPresentationWithNotes_FINAL.pdf

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Safety%20Evaluation%20Completed%20Projects/AllWayPresentationWithNotes_FINAL.pdf

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/08063/

25

4.1.25 Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for Rural High Speed Signalized Approaches

Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection systems enhance safety at signalized intersections on HRRRs by modifying traffic control signal timing to reduce the number of drivers that may have difficulty deciding whether to stop or proceed during a yellow phase. This may reduce rear-end crashes associated with unsafe stopping and angle crashes due to illegally continuing into the intersection during the red phase.45

4.1.26 Implement Lane Narrowing through Rumble Strips and Painted Median at Rural Stop-Controlled Approaches

Lane narrowing features the introduction of rumble strips on the outside shoulders and in a painted yellow median island on the HRRR road approach to an intersection. The objective of lane narrowing is to induce drivers on major-roads to reduce approach speeds at intersections by effectively reducing the lane width.46

4.1.27 Upgrade to Larger Stop Signs

A high number of crashes on HRRRs relate to the driver’s inability or failure to see the Stop sign at stop-controlled intersection. To improve recognition of the signs, larger Stop signs can be installed. Sizes can range from 24 inches, to 30 inches, to 36 inches, to 48 inches.

4.1.28 Double Use of Stop Signs

Two stop signs (mounted left and right) can be used to call greater attention to the need for motorists to stop at an intersection. In addition to the first stop sign at the traditional right side location, a second is recommended in the median (if available) of the approach. To accommodate this left-mounted stop sign, a splitter island (Show in 4.1.15) can be used in

45 FHWA. Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection System. 2009. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/resources/techsum/fhwasa09008/ 46 FHWA. Two Low-Cost Safety Concepts for Two-Way Stop-Controlled, Rural Intersections on High-Speed Two-Lane, Two-Way Roadways. 2008. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/08063/.

Figure 11. Example of Lane Narrowing

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/resources/techsum/fhwasa09008/

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/08063/

26

combination with this treatment, and also provides the motorist with additional information that he or she is entering an intersection.47

4.1.29 Install Retro-reflective Strips on Sign Posts

The use of retro-reflective strips on sign posts may be beneficial when there is a need to draw additional attention to the signs, especially at night on rural roads. Reflective strips may be added to Stop signs, curve or intersection warning signs, regulatory or guidance signs, etc.

The MUTCD provides the following guidance for the use of reflective strips on sign posts: the material must be at least 2 inches wide and must be placed the full length of the post from the sign to within 2 feet above the edge of the roadway. In addition, the color of the material must match the background color of the sign except that the color of the strip for Yield and Do Not Enter signs must be red.

4.1.30 Provide Upcoming Road Names on Advanced Warning Signs

At locations where Intersection Ahead warning signs are used on rural roads, street name signs can be placed underneath each intersection warning sign. These street name plaques provide the driver with additional information about the street the motorist is approaching so he or she can make an early decision regarding potential turning movements.48

4.1.31 Improve Traffic Signal Visibility (Larger Diameter Lens or Install Back Plate)

Enhancing the visibility of traffic signals on rural roads can help to eliminate red-light running and associated crashes. Enhancements may include installing larger signal lens diameter and using reflective back plates, as shown in Figure 12.

4.1.32 Install Priority Control Systems for Emergency Vehicles

Emergency priority control systems are designed to give emergency response vehicles a green indication on their approach to a signalized intersection while providing a red light to conflicting approaches.49 This can help reduce collisions and increase EMS response time in rural areas.

47 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa1108/fhwasa1108.pdf 48 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa1108/fhwasa1108.pdf 49 FHWA. Traffic Signal Preemption for Emergency Vehicles: A CROSS-CUTTING STUDY. 2006.

Figure 12. Example of Reflective Back Plates



27

4.1.33 Upgrade Passive Crossing Warning Devices to Active Warning Devices at Railroad Crossings

By upgrading railroad crossing warning devices from passive to active, motorists are notified as to the presence of an approaching train and can make an informed decision whether to cross. This can be useful in rural areas where passive warning devices may not be adequate.

4.1.34 Upgrade Existing Active Railroad Crossing Hardware and Warning Systems

The installation of enhanced railroad crossing hardware and warning systems not only notifies motorists as to the presence of an approaching train on rural roads, but can limit their ability to proceed through the intersection through the use of gates, channelization, and other devices.

4.1.35 Remove an Existing Railroad Grade Crossing

Eliminating a railroad crossing removes conflicts between rural road users and railroad. This will ideally divert traffic to another crossing with a lower risk for collisions, whether it is a grade-separated structure or another at-grade intersection.

Cost-Effectiveness Values for Intersection Treatments For intersection-related treatments, the cost effective analysis assessment includes low volume intersections (assumed to have values of 1000 vehicles per day (VPD) for both the major and minor leg) and moderate volume intersections (assumed to have values of 8000 VPD for the major leg and 1000 VPD for the minor leg). In addition, where applicable, the analysis considered three types of intersection configurations:

• 4SG -- Four-leg signalized intersection;

• 4ST -- Four-leg intersections where the minor-road has a stop condition and the major-road is not required to stop; and

• 3ST -- Three-leg intersections where the minor leg has a stop condition and the major-road is not required to stop

For the purposes of maintaining comparable evaluations, all three intersection configurations are assumed to be located on two-lane, two-way rural highways.

The following tables demonstrate the results of the cost-effectiveness assessment for intersection-related treatments.

28

Signalized Intersection Treatments

Table 5: 4SG Low Volume Intersections (AADT major=1000 VPD, AADT minor=1000 VPD)

Treatment (4SG) – Low Volume Conditions Benefit-Cost Ratio*

Convert a Traditional Signalized Intersection into a J-turn 45.4 Provide Intersection Lighting 26.9 Provide Flashing Beacons at Intersection Approaches 11.0 Install Right-Turn Lane (2 major approaches) 4.9 Convert a Traditional Signalized Intersection into a Roundabout

4.8

Install Left-Turn Lane (2 major approaches) 4.1 *Intersection evaluations based on a service life of 20 years.

Table 6: 4SG Higher Volume Intersections (AADT major=8000 VPD, AADT minor=1000 VPD)

Treatment (4SG) – Higher Volume Conditions Benefit- Cost Ratio*

Convert a Traditional Signalized Intersection into a J-turn 159.1 Provide Intersection Lighting 93.8 Provide Flashing Beacons at Intersection Approaches 38.2 Install Right-Turn Lane (2 major approaches) 16.9 Convert a Traditional Signalized Intersection into a Roundabout

16.6

Install Left-Turn Lane (2 major approaches) 14.1 *Intersection evaluations based on a service life of 20 years.

Four-Leg Stop Intersection Treatments

Table 7: 4ST Lower Volume Intersections (AADT major=1000 VPD, AADT minor=1000 VPD)

Treatment (4ST) – Lower Volume Conditions Benefit- Cost Ratio*

Provide a Stop Bar on Minor-Road Approaches 337.7 Improve Sight Distance within Sight Triangle 157.3 Convert Minor-Road Stop to All-Way Stop Control 77.2 Convert a Traditional Stop Intersection into a J-Turn 46.1 Provide Intersection Lighting 23.1 Provide Flashing Beacons at Intersection Approaches 16.3 Install Right-Turn Lane (2 major approaches) 16.0 Install Traffic Signals (Stop control previous) 15.4 Install Bypass Lane 11.6 Install Left-Turn Lane (2 major approaches) 6.0 Convert a Traditional Stop Intersection to a Roundabout 4.8 *Intersection evaluations based on a service life of 20 years.

29

Table 8: 4ST Higher Volume Intersections (AADT major=8000 VPD, AADT minor=1000 VPD)

Three-Leg Approach Stop Intersection Treatments Table 9: 3ST Low Volume Intersections (AADT major=1000 VPD, AADT minor=1000 VPD)

Treatment (4ST) – Higher Volume Conditions Benefit- Cost Ratio*

Provide a Stop Bar on Minor-Road Approaches 1175.8 Improve Sight Distance within Sight Triangle 547.8 Convert Minor-Road Stop to All-Way Stop Control 268.8 Convert a Traditional Stop Intersection into a J-Turn 161.4 Provide Intersection Lighting 80.6 Provide Flashing Beacons at Intersection Approaches 56.8 Install Right-Turn Lane (2 major approaches) 55.9 Install Traffic Signals (Stop control previous) 53.8 Install Bypass Lane 40.6 Install Left-Turn Lane (2 major approaches) 20.8 Convert a Traditional Stop Intersection to a Roundabout

16.8

*Intersection evaluations based on a service life of 20 years.

Treatment (3ST) – Lower Volume Conditions Benefit- Cost Ratio*

Provide a Stop Bar on Minor-Road Approaches 287.1 Improve Sight Distance within Sight Triangle 66.9 Convert Minor-Road Stop to All-Way Stop Control 32.8 Provide Intersection Lighting 10.5 Provide Flashing Beacons at Intersection Approaches 6.9 Install Traffic Signals (Stop control previous) 6.9 Install Right-Turn Lane (2 major approaches) 6.8 Install Bypass Lane 5.0 Install Left-Turn Lane (2 major approaches) 3.7 *Intersection evaluations based on a service life of 20 years.

30

Table 10: 3ST Higher Volume Intersections (AADT major=8000 VPD, AADT minor=1000 VPD) Treatment (3ST) – Higher Volume Conditions Benefit- Cost

Ratio*

Provide a Stop Bar on Minor-Road Approaches 1484.1 Improve Sight Distance within Sight Triangle 345.7 Convert Minor-Road Stop to All-Way Stop Control 169.7 Provide Intersection Lighting 54.2 Provide Flashing Beacons at Intersection Approaches 35.8 Install Traffic Signals (Stop control previous) 35.5 Install Right-Turn Lane (2 major approaches) 35.3 Install Bypass Lane 25.6 Install Left-Turn Lane (2 major approaches) 18.9 *Intersection evaluations based on a service life of 20 years.

4.2 Signing and Pavement Marking Safety Treatments

Signing and pavement marking safety improvements can give warnings to drivers at horizontal curve locations and along center lines and edge lines of the driving lane. Treatments cited in this section do not include intersection-related signing and pavement marking improvements.

4.2.1 Install Curve Warning Signs

Some of the most serious crashes on rural roads occur at horizontal curves. Horizontal alignment signs, informally called curve warning signs, can improve safety by alerting drivers to changes in roadway geometry that may not be apparent or expected. These signs provide visual information for the driver about the nature of the curve they are approach, letting them know whether it is a gradual curve, a sharp turn, a hairpin turn, or some combination.50 Different types of curve warning signs are identified in the MUTCD.

50 University of California, Berkley, Institute of Transportation Studies, Technology Transfer Program, Tech Transfer Newsletter, “Signs for Curves and Turns,” Spring 2008. Available at: http://www.techtransfer.berkeley.edu/newsletter/08-2/signs-for-curves-and-turns.php

http://www.techtransfer.berkeley.edu/newsletter/08-2/signs-for-curves-and-turns.php

31

Figure 14. Chevron Signs on a Two-lane Rural Road

4.2.2 Install Chevron Signs

Chevron signs (or curve delineation signs) indicates to drivers the alignment of the roadway when they are within the actual horizontal alignment of a curve. The signs show the shape and degree of curvature, and they guide drivers through the entire curve or turn, as shown in Figure 14.51

4.2.3 Install/Upgrade Curve Warning Signs with Fluorescent Yellow Sheeting

Fluorescent yellow sheeting can improve the effectiveness of curve warning and delineation signs by increasing the conspicuity of the sign, especially during dark conditions on rural roads.

51 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa1109/fhwasa1109.pdf

Figure 13. Horizontal Curve Sign Treatments (left) and an Example of an Installed Advanced Curve Warning Sign Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 (left) and AASHTO (right).


32

Figure 15. Raised Pavement Markers.

4.2.4 Double Use of Advanced Warning Signs for Curves or Intersections

Doubling the use of either Intersection Ahead warning signs or Curve Ahead warning signs (on the left and right) can be used for rural road locations where the crash rate has not been reduced after installation of a single advanced warning sign.

4.2.5 Install Edge Line Markings

Edge line markings separate the travel lane from the shoulder and communicate to the driver the intended travel path and alignment of the roadway. The MUTCD states that edge line markings must be white.52 A standard edge line marking is 4 inches, and wider edge line markings can range from 4 inches to 8 inches in width.

4.2.6 Install Centerline Markings

Centerline markings separate two opposing traffic streams on HRRRs, guide the road user, and delineate travel lanes. The MUTCD states that centerline markings must be yellow. A single solid centerline is used to discourage crossing, a double line prohibits crossing, and a broken centerline is used to indicate a passing zone. 53

4.2.7 Install Centerline and Edge Line Markings

For a description of centerline and edge line markings, see Sections 4.2.5 and 4.2.6. This treatment refers to installing both centerline and edge line markings on a rural roadway.

4.2.8 Install Raised Pavement Markers

Raised pavement markers are designed to supplement the delineation provided by pavement markings. During certain conditions, particularly on wet rural roads in the dark, motorists may have difficulty determining the location of the centerline and edge line pavement markings, increasing the likelihood of roadway departure. By installing raised pavement markers, the pavement markings are much more prominent in adverse weather conditions, providing important information to the driver.54

52 http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/safetytoolbox/downloads/PavementMarkings_CL_EL.pdf 53 http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/safetytoolbox/downloads/PavementMarkings_CL_EL.pdf 54 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa1109/fhwasa1109.pdf

http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/safetytoolbox/downloads/PavementMarkings_CL_EL.pdf

http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/safetytoolbox/downloads/PavementMarkings_CL_EL.pdf


33

4.2.9 Install Post-Mounted Delineators at Horizontal Curves

When used within horizontal curves on rural roads, post-mounted delineators with retro reflective sheeting the full length of the post improves driver lane position both at the entry to the curve and at its midpoint.

4.2.10 Install Wider Pavement Markings (With or Without Rumble Strips)

Pavement markings provide continuous information to road users related to the roadway alignment, vehicle positioning, and other important driving-related tasks. Edge line width has been found to statistically lower nighttime fatal and injury crashes.55

4.2.11 Install Icy Curve Warning System

Ice warning systems may be installed at problematic areas on HRRRs where ice formation frequently reoccurs. Using in-pavement weather sensors, icy curve warning signs are activated to alert motorists of upcoming icy conditions.56

4.2.12 Install Arrow Signs at Horizontal Curve Locations

The One-Direction Large Arrow sign (W1-6) is used to define a change in horizontal alignment on a rural road. It can be used alone or to supplement other curve warning signs, such as chevrons.

55 Carlson, Park, and Anderson. “The Benefits of Pavement Markings: A Renewed Perspective Based on Recent and Ongoing Research,” Paper No. 09-0488, Presented at TRB 2009. 56 Ye, Veneziano, Turnbull. Safety Effects of Icy Curve Warning Systems. 2012.

Figure 16. Arrow Sign in a Horizontal Curve

34

Figure 17. Optical Speed Bars

4.2.13 Use of Supplemental Warning Signs

When specialized conditions exist, supplemental warning signs on rural roads may be used to notify road users of the possibly for slower and more susceptible road users to be ahead. Examples include Share the Road, Trail Crossing, and Equestrian Crossing signs. See Section 4.6 for more information on the application of these signs.

4.2.14 Optical Speed Bars

Optical Speed Bars are transverse stripes spaced at gradually decreasing distances. The rationale for using them is to increase drivers’ perception of speed and cause them to reduce speed, which can be helpful near intersections. The Optical Speed Bar name comes from this intended visual effect on drivers’ speed as they react to the spacing of the painted lines. These white transverse stripes are 18 inches long and 12 inches wide. Thermoplastic is the preferred material because it withstands the exposure to traffic volume over time.57 Agencies should avoid applying Optical Speed Bars just to reduce traffic speed because overuse could jeopardize the visual effect of the treatment.

Cost-Effectiveness Values for Signing and Pavement Marking Treatments.

The treatments included in the signing and pavement marking summary are generally located along a length of roadway. As a result, the number of predicted crashes can be based on the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) segment analysis for rural two-lane highways. For these segment-related treatments, the assessment includes lower volume (ADT = 1000 VPD) and higher volume (ADT = 8000 VPD) segments. In addition, the HSM has a set of base conditions that define an optimal roadway configuration (12-foot lanes, 6-foot paved shoulders, etc.). Many of the treatments do not apply to locations of this nature, but the analysis has been further divided into optimal segment configurations (represented by the HSM base conditions) and narrower segments (defined as segments with 10-foot lanes and no shoulders). The optimal segment represents a State-maintained facility, while the narrower segment represents locally managed segment configurations.

The assessment of treatments related to horizontal curves needs to be represented by curved configurations, so the segment non-curve treatments assume tangent sections and the curve-related treatments are assumed to have a radius of 1,060 feet and a superelevation of

57 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/horicurves/fhwasa07002/ch7.cfm

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/horicurves/fhwasa07002/ch7.cfm

35

6 percent. These values represent the minimum allowable thresholds for a design speed of 55 mph. The service life for the signing and pavement marking treatments is assumed to be 10 years with maintenance or reconstruction as needed during interim periods.

The following tables demonstrate the results of the cost-effectiveness assessment for signing and pavement marking treatments.

Table 11: Optimal (HSM Based Conditions) Segment Locations for Signing and Pavement Marking Safety Treatments Benefit- Cost

Ratio*

Lower Volume (AADT=1000 VPD) Optimal Conditions Install / Upgrade Curve Warning Signs with Fluorescent Yellow Sheeting 61.3 Install Centerline Markings 35.1 Install Curve Warning Signs 33.8 Install Arrow Boards at Horizontal Curve Locations 27.9 Install Edge Line Markings 27.9 Install Centerline and Edge Line Markings 16.5 Install Chevron Signs 10.6 Install Post-Mounted Delineators at Horizontal Curves 5.3

Higher Volume (AADT=8000 VPD) Optimal Conditions Install / Upgrade Curve Warning Signs with Fluorescent Yellow Sheeting 490.4 Install Centerline Markings 281.0 Install Curve Warning Signs 270.1 Install Arrow Boards at Horizontal Curve Locations 222.8 Install Edge Line Markings 222.8 Install Centerline and Edge Line Markings 132.1 Install Chevron Signs 84.7 Install Post-Mounted Delineators at Horizontal Curves 42.4 *Segment evaluations based on a service life of 10 years.

36

Figure 18. Pavement Friction Improvements

Table 12: Narrower Segment Locations for Signing and Pavement Marking Treatments Safety Treatments Benefit-Cost

Ratio*

Lower Volume (AADT=1000 VPD), Narrower (10' lanes, no shoulder) Install / Upgrade Curve Warning Signs with Fluorescent Yellow Sheeting 75.1 Install Curve Warning Signs 43.5 Install Centerline Markings 43.0 Install Arrow Boards at Horizontal Curve Locations 34.1 Install Edge Line Markings 34.1 Install Centerline and Edge Line Markings 20.2 Install Chevron Signs 13.0 Install Post-Mounted Delineators at Horizontal Curves 6.5

Higher Volume (AADT=8000 VPD), Narrower (10' lanes, no shoulder) Install / Upgrade Curve Warning Signs with Fluorescent Yellow Sheeting 739.9 Install Curve Warning Signs 428.4 Install Centerline Markings 424.0 Install Arrow Boards at Horizontal Curve Locations 336.1 Install Edge Line Markings 336.1 Install Centerline and Edge Line Markings 199.3 Install Chevron Signs 127.7 Install Post-Mounted Delineators at Horizontal Curves 63.9 *Signing and Pavement Marking Treatment evaluations based on a service life of 10 years.

4.3 Pavement and Shoulder Resurfacing and Widening Infrastructure Safety Treatments

Pavement and shoulder resurfacing and widening infrastructure safety treatments may improve a vehicle’s ability to remain on the roadway at horizontal curves. This occurs by increasing the paved area for use by a vehicle, providing warning when a vehicle is leaving the driving lane, or improving the friction to reduce hydroplaning and loss of vehicle control.

4.3.1 Improve Pavement Friction/Increase Skid Resistance58

Vehicles often leave the road due to lack of friction,

58 High Friction Surface Treatments are a part of the Every Day County Initiative. See http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/everydaycounts/edctwo/2012/friction.cfm for more information.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/everydaycounts/edctwo/2012/friction.cfm

37

Figure 19. SafetyEdge

especially in wet conditions when water gets between the tires and pavement causing hydroplaning. Pavement friction treatments can reduce the number of wet crashes by improving friction at specific locations of need on HRRRs.59High Friction Treatments at horizontal curves is part of FHWA’s Every Day Counts (EDC) Initiative.60

4.3.2 Install the SafetyEdge61

When a vehicle leaves the traveled way and encounters a pavement-shoulder drop-off, it can be difficult for the driver to return safely to the roadway. The SafetyEdge is a treatment intended to minimize drop-off-related crashes. With this treatment, the pavement edge is sloped at an angle of 30 degrees to make it easier for a driver to safely reenter the roadway after inadvertently driving onto the shoulder.62 This treatment is designed to be a standard policy for any overlay project and is part of FHWA’s EDC Initiative. 63

4.3.3 Install Rumble Strips

Rumble strips are raised or grooved patterns on the roadway that provide both an audible warning (rumbling sound) and a physical vibration to alert drivers that they are leaving the driving lane. Rumble strips on rural roads may be installed on the centerline of undivided highways, on the roadway shoulder, or on the roadway surface (transverse rumble strips). Consideration should be taken to address the needs of bikers who may use a roadway prior to installing rumble strips. See section 4.6.9 for more information.

4.3.4 Widen Existing Travel Lanes by Two Feet or Less per Lane Increasing lane width on HRRRs from 9 feet or 10 feet wide to 11 feet or 12 feet wide can have up to a 50 percent reduction in crashes. Drivers on rural two-lane highways may shift closer to the centerline as they become less comfortable next to a narrow shoulder. At other times, they

59 Golembiewski, G. A. and Chandler, B., “Roadway Departure Safety: A Manual for Local Rural Road Owners,” January 2011. Available at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa1109/fhwasa1109.pdf 60 High Friction Treatments at Horizontal Curves is part of the EDC Initiative. See http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/everydaycounts/edctwo/2012/friction.cfm 61 The Safety Edge is a part of the EDC Initiative. See http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/everydaycounts/technology/safetyedge/intro.cfm for more information. 62 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/hsis/11025/11025.pdf 63 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa1109/fhwasa1109.pdf


http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/everydaycounts/technology/safetyedge/intro.cfm

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/hsis/11025/11025.pdf


38

may shift closer to the shoulder edge and are at greater risk of driving off the paved portion of the roadway as they meet oncoming traffic.64 Lane widening in horizontal curve sections may help agencies maximize use of the treatment while minimizing costs as opposed to widening lanes through an entire corridor.

4.3.5 Add Paved Shoulder

The addition of a paved shoulder to an existing road can help to reduce run-off-road crashes. Benefits can be realized for any HRRR without paved shoulders, regardless of existing lane pavement width. Adding a paved shoulder within horizontal curve sections as opposed to applying them to an entire corridor may help agencies maximize use of the treatment while minimizing costs.

4.3.6 Improve Superelevation at Horizontal Curve Locations

Superelevation is the rotation of the pavement on the approach to and through a horizontal curve and is intended to assist the driver in negotiating the curve by counteracting the lateral acceleration produced by tracking.65

4.3.7 Install Passing or Climbing Lanes

Passing or climbing lanes are auxiliary lanes that are provided in short segments to accommodate the passage of single-directional traffic on HRRRs.

4.3.8 Increase Shoulder Width

Increasing shoulder width may help to accommodate the following:

• Provide an area for drivers to maneuver to avoid crashes; • Increase safety by providing a stable, clear recovery area for drivers who have left the

travel lane; • Improve stopping sight distance at horizontal curves by providing an offset to objects

such as barrier and bridge piers; • Improve bicycle accommodation; and • Provide space for emergency storage of disabled vehicles.

The benefits seen by increasing shoulder on rural roads width vary based on before and after conditions, road classification, speed, and the presence of multiple road user types. Increasing shoulder width within horizontal curve sections as opposed to adding widening shoulders to an entire corridor may help agencies maximize use of the treatment while minimizing costs.

64 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/geometric/pubs/mitigationstrategies/chapter3/3_lanewidth.htm 65 FHWA. Mitigating Strategies for Design Exceptions. 2007.

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/geometric/pubs/mitigationstrategies/chapter3/3_lanewidth.htm

39

4.3.9 Install or Maintain a Graded Shoulder

Because a lot of rural roads lack adequate shoulders, installing an earth or graded shoulder adjacent to the travel lane provides a recovery area for vehicles if they should depart the road. The shoulder serves as an opportunity for drivers to correct their direction of travel by re-entering the roadway, but if the driver cannot correct his steering, the shoulder provides an opportunity for the driver to slow his advance before traversing the sideslope.

4.3.10 Install Targeted Longitudinal Rumble Strips at Key Locations (Such as on the Outside of Horizontal Curves Only)

Shoulder-or edge-line milled rumble strips can be used on roads with a history of roadway departure crashes. While it is recommended that rumble strips be applied systematically along an entire HRRR instead of only at spot locations, where appropriate, they can be used on the outside of horizontal curves and the tangent leading to the curves.

4.3.11 Regrade or Recondition Unpaved Roads

Maintaining a proper grade on gravel or other unpaved road surfaces helps to remove rutting, shape the road to allow for proper drainage, smooth the driving surface, and bring the road surface up to bridge approaches or low water crossing approaches. Each of these considerations helps improve safety for those traveling along the HRRR.

4.3.12 Provide Turnout Areas

Turnout areas are additional pavement beyond the HRRR travel way used for slower moving traffic to allow following traffic to pass.

Cost-Effectiveness Values for Pavement and Shoulder Resurfacing or Widening.

The treatments included in the pavement and shoulder resurfacing and widening category are generally located along a length of roadway or segment. As a result, a similar structure for treatment assessment to that used in the previous section will again occur. For these segment-related treatments, the assessment includes lower volume (ADT = 1000 VPD) and higher volume (ADT = 8000 VPD) segments. In addition, the HSM has a set of base conditions that define an optimal roadway configuration (e.g. 12-foot lanes, 6-foot paved shoulders, etc.). Many of the treatments do not apply to locations of this nature, but the analysis has been further divided into optimal segment configurations (represented by the HSM base conditions) and narrower segments (defined as segments with 10-foot lanes and no shoulders). The optimal segment represents a State-maintained facility, while the narrower segment represents locally managed segment configurations.

40

The assessment of treatments related to horizontal curves need to be represented by curved configurations, so the segment non-curve treatments assume tangent sections and the curve-related treatments are assumed to have a radius of 1,060 feet and a superelevation of 6 percent. These values represent the minimum allowable thresholds for a design speed of 55 mph. Select treatments are only applicable to less than optimal roadway configurations. For example, the ideal road would have a paved shoulder and so the "Add Paved Shoulder" option would not apply. Similarly, there is not a need to widen the travel lane for a corridor where they are already optimal. As a result, these treatments are not included in the HSM base conditions table, but do appear in the "Narrower" road configuration. The service life for the pavement and shoulder resurfacing and widening treatments is assumed to be 20 years (the longest service life associated with this treatment) and includes, as needed, maintenance or reconstruction costs during interim periods.

The following tables demonstrate the results of the cost-effectiveness assessment for pavement and shoulder resurfacing and widening treatments.

Table 13: Optimal (HSM Base Condition) Segment Locations for Pavement and Shoulder Resurfacing and Widening Treatments

Safety Treatments Benefit- Cost Ratio*

Lower Volume (AADT=1000 VPD) Optimal Conditions Install Shoulder Rumble Strips 58.6 Install a Safety Edge 33.4 Install Centerline Rumble Strips 21.3 High Friction Surface Treatment (Assumes one 800’ long curve treatment per mile)

3.3

Install Passing or Climbing Lanes 0.3 Higher Volume (AADT=8000 VPD) Optimal Conditions

Install Shoulder Rumble Strips 469.0 Install a Safety Edge 267.2 Install Centerline Rumble Strips 170.6 High Friction Surface Treatment (Assumes one 800’ long curve treatment per mile)

26.7

Install Passing or Climbing Lanes 2.3 *Based on service life of 20 years. Note: Calculations based on cost per linear mile unless otherwise noted.

41

Table 14: Narrower Segment Locations for Pavement and Shoulder Resurfacing and Widening Treatments


Lower Volume (AADT=1000 VPD), Narrower (10' lanes, no shoulder) Install Shoulder Rumble Strips 71.8 Install a Safety Edge 40.9 Install Centerline Rumble Strips 26.1 High Friction Surface Treatment (Assumes one 800’ long curve treatment per mile)

4.1

Add Paved Shoulder 0.5 Install Passing or Climbing Lanes 0.4 Widen Existing Travel Lanes by Two Feet or Less per Lane 0.3

Higher Volume (AADT=8000 VPD), Narrower (10' lanes, no shoulder) Install Shoulder Rumble Strips 707.7 Install a Safety Edge 403.2 Install Centerline Rumble Strips 257.5 High Friction Surface Treatment (Assumes one 800’ long curve treatment per mile)

40.3

Add Paved Shoulder 4.5 Install Passing or Climbing Lanes 3.5 Widen Existing Travel Lanes by Two Feet or Less per Lane 2.8 *Based on service life of 20 years. Note: Calculations based on cost per linear mile unless otherwise noted.

4.4 Roadside Infrastructure Safety Treatments

Improvements cited in this section include removal of hazards, redesigning obstacles, relocating obstacles, reducing impacts with breakaway devices, shielding obstacles, or delineation. These are common hazards on rural roadways.

4.4.1 Create or Increase Clear Zone

A clear zone is an unobstructed, traversable roadside area that allows a driver to stop safely or regain control of a vehicle that has left the roadway. The width of the clear zone should be based on risk (also called exposure). Key factors in assessing risk include traffic volumes, speeds, and slopes. Clear roadsides consider both fixed objects and terrain that may cause vehicles to rollover.66 Creating or increasing clear zones within horizontal curve sections on HRRRs may help agencies maximize use of the treatment while minimizing costs, as opposed to providing a clear zone throughout an entire corridor.

66 FHWA, “Clear Zones,” Available at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/clear_zones/.

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/clear_zones/

42

4.4.2 Remove or Shield Obstacles in Clear Zone

Removing, redesigning, marking, or relocating fixed objects within the clear zone reduces the likelihood of a crash. If a crash occurs, adding breakaway features, crash cushions, or redirection devices reduces crash severity.

4.4.3 Flatten Road Sideslope

By reducing the amount of road sideslope, vehicles are better able to recover after leaving the travelway. The flatter the slope, the more traversable the sideslope becomes.

4.4.4 Relocate Select Hazardous Utility Poles

Removing or relocating utility poles in high crash and high-risk spot locations on HRRRs make it less likely that vehicles will come into contact with these fixed objects.

4.4.5 Improve Sight Distance by Maintaining Roadside Vegetation

Vegetation control helps lessen the likelihood of fixed object crashes by eliminating trees. Proper maintenance of tall grass, weeds, brush, and tree limbs and can help improve driver’s sight distance of the road ahead, traffic control devices, approaching vehicles, wildlife and livestock, and pedestrians and bicycles.67

4.4.6 Convert Culvert Headwalls to Traversable End Treatments

Culvert headwalls may act as a fixed object hazard once vehicles leave a rural road. By installing traversable culvert end treatments, vehicles may be able to drive over them without rolling over or experiencing an abrupt change in speed.

4.4.7 Modify End Treatments of Existing Guardrail

The installation of a crashworthy end treatment can be used to prevent impact with guardrail ends by safely decelerating the vehicle or by safety redirecting it around the object of concern.

4.4.8 Install Concrete Median Barrier

Concrete median barriers are longitudinal barriers used to separate opposing directions of traffic. While these systems may not reduce the frequency of crashes due to roadway departure, they can help prevent a lane-departure crash from becoming a head-on collision.68

67 FHWA. Vegetation Control For Safety: A Guide for Local Highway and Street Maintenance Personnel. 2008. 68 FHWA website. Accessed February 20, 2013. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/policy_guide/road_hardware/ctrmeasures/median_barriers/

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/policy_guide/road_hardware/ctrmeasures/median_barriers/

43

4.4.9 Install Median Guardrail

The installation of median guardrail is most suitable for use in traversable medians having little or no change in grade and cross slope. While these systems may not reduce the frequency of crashes due to roadway departure, they can help prevent a lane-departure crash from becoming a head-on collision.69

4.4.10 Install Median Cable Barrier

Median cable barrier systems are considered the most versatile and forgiving barrier systems available for reducing the severity of median crossover crashes. While these systems may not reduce the frequency of crashes due to roadway departure, they can help prevent a lane-departure crash from becoming a head-on collision.70

4.4.11 Widen Existing Median or Construct Median

Use of these treatments helps to provide additional lateral distance between opposing traffic on HRRRs.

4.4.12 Install Impact Attenuation Devices at Select Roadside Hazard Locations (Such as Exposed Bridge Columns)

An impact attenuator, also known as a crash cushion or crash attenuator is a device intended to reduce the damage to vehicles, motorists, and structures as a result of a motor vehicle collision. Attenuators may be installed to protect bridge columns and other roadside obstacles found on HRRRs.

4.4.13 Remove Guardrail

Removal of guardrail that no longer provides a safety benefit can help eliminate a roadside obstacle. Each removal should be performed on a case-by-case basis after further evaluation.

4.4.14 Construct Wildlife Fencing

Wildlife fences help to prevent livestock and wildlife from straying onto highways. This countermeasure benefits both the motorized and non-motorized HRRR users.

69 FHWA website. Accessed February 20, 2013. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/policy_guide/road_hardware/ctrmeasures/median_barriers/ 70 FHWA website. Accessed February 20, 2013. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/policy_guide/road_hardware/ctrmeasures/median_barriers/



44

4.4.15 Install or Modify Culverts to Accommodate Wildlife Crossing

A mix of underpasses, bridge extensions, culvert installations, and culvert modifications can be used to facilitate wildlife movement and reduce collisions on HRRRs associated with wildlife.

Cost-Effectiveness Values for Roadside Infrastructure Safety Improvement Treatments

The treatments included in the roadside infrastructure category are generally located along a length of roadway, or a segment, and adhere to the same assumptions identified in previous sections. Once again, the HSM base condition configuration includes optimal design features including a reasonably flat roadside slope, so the treatment "flatten roadside slope" could only be assessed for the narrower test condition. The optimal segment represents a State-maintained facility, while the narrower segment represents locally managed segment configurations.

The service life for the roadside infrastructure treatments is assumed to be 20 years (the longest service life associated with this treatment) and includes, as needed, maintenance or reconstruction costs during interim periods.

The following tables demonstrate the results of the cost-effectiveness assessment for the roadside infrastructure treatments.

Table 15: Optimal (HSM Base Condition) Segment Locations for Roadside Infrastructure Treatments


Lower Volume (AADT=1000 VPD) Optimal Conditions Remove or Shield Obstacles in Clear Zone 3.1 Create or Increase Clear Zone 1.0

Higher Volume (AADT=8000 VPD) Optimal Conditions Remove or Shield Obstacles in Clear Zone 24.5 Create or Increase Clear Zone 7.9 *Roadside infrastructure treatment evaluations based on a service life of 20 years.

45

Table 16: Narrower Segment Locations for Roadside Infrastructure Treatments

Safety Treatments Benefit-Cost Ratio*

Lower Volume (AADT=1000 VPD), Narrower (10' lanes, no shoulder)

Remove or Shield Obstacles in Clear Zone 4.6 Create or Increase Clear Zone 1.5 Flatten Roadside Slope 0.2

Higher Volume (AADT=8000 VPD), Narrower (10' lanes, no shoulder)

Remove or Shield Obstacles in Clear Zone 45.2 Create or Increase Clear Zone 14.6 Flatten Roadside Slope 1.9 *Pavement and Shoulder Resurfacing and Widening treatment evaluations based on a service life of 20 years

4.5 Capital Improvement Safety Treatments

Capital improvements related to safety may include considerable geometric reconfigurations, especially at intersections, or the upgrade of traditional at-grade intersections to alternative designs.

4.5.1 Install a Roundabout

See description in Section 4.1.1.

4.5.2 Improve Horizontal Intersection Alignment


4.5.3 Convert a Four-leg Intersection into Two, Three-leg Intersections


4.5.4 Reconstruct At-Grade Intersection to an Interchange

By removing an existing at-grade intersection with an interchange, the through movements on the major street are physically separated from the other turning movements, which are typically served by one or two intersections (ramp terminals) on the minor street.71 The interchange may take several forms: a diamond interchange, a single point urban interchange, and a compressed diamond interchange. Each interchange type has independent safety implications. Although this is not a common treatment on a high risk rural roadway and requires a large initial investment, some agencies did utilize this treatment.

71 FHWA. Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide. 2004.

46

Figure 20. Two-Way Left-Turn Lane

4.5.5 Modify Horizontal/Vertical Geometry

Horizontal and vertical geometry at rural intersections may be reconstructed in a variety of ways. For example, horizontal and vertical curves may benefit from increased radii, thereby increasing sight distance. Modifying road geometry may also include eliminating horizontal or vertical curves and providing a more direct alignment.

4.5.6 Convert a Four-Lane, Two-Way Road into a Three-Lane Road with One Lane in Each Direction of Travel plus a Continuous Two-Way, Left-Turn Lane (Road Diet)

A road diet involves converting an undivided four-lane roadway into three lanes made up of two through lanes and a center two-way, left-turn lane. The reduction of lanes allows the roadway to be reallocated for other uses such as bike lanes, pedestrian crossing islands, and/or parking. Road diets have multiple safety and operational benefits for vehicles as well as pedestrians, such as:

• Decreasing vehicle travel lanes for pedestrians to cross, therefore, reducing the multiple-threat crash (when one vehicle stops in a travel lane on a multilane road for a pedestrian, but the motorist in the next lane does not, resulting in a crash) for pedestrians;

• Providing room for a pedestrian crossing island; • Improving safety for bicyclists when bike lanes are added (such lanes also create a buffer

space between pedestrians and vehicles); • Providing the opportunity for on-street parking (also a buffer between pedestrians and

vehicles); • Reducing rear-end and side-swipe crashes; and • Improving speed limit compliance and decreasing crash severity when crashes do

occur.72

4.5.7 Construct a Two-Way, Left-Turn Lane

A two-way, left-turn lane (TWLTL) is a lane placed between opposing lanes of traffic for the purpose of allowing traffic from either direction to make left turns off of a roadway.

The TWLTLs remove left turning vehicles from the through lanes, which can reduce delay to through vehicles and can lead to a reduction in rear-end and sideswipe collisions. Second, TWLTLs provide spatial separation between opposing lanes of traffic, which can lead to a reduction in head-on collisions. The TWLTLs can also function as a lane for emergency

vehicles.73 This treatment has been used on high risk rural roadways that cross through a small city or town without changing functional classification and thus is still meet the

72 FHWA. Proven Safety Countermeasures - "Road Diet" (Roadway Reconfiguration). FHWA-SA-12-013.

47

definition of a HRRR.

4.5.8 Convert a Traditional Intersection into a J-Turn Intersection (Constraining Left Turn Maneuvers from Minor Roads)


4.5.9 Remove Compound Horizontal Curves

Drivers typically expect a single steering setting while negotiating a horizontal curve. Replacing compound curves on HRRRs with a single radii curve better adheres to driver expectations.

4.5.10 Mitigate Ground Water to Prevent Ponding and/or Icing

Good site drainage is needed to keep ponding and/or icing from occurring. This can be accomplished through a change in runoff conditions, whether by increasing the storm drainage capacity, re-grading ditches for better flow, or changes to the roadway superelevation.

4.5.11 Widen Functionally Obsolete Bridges

Widening narrow bridges on HRRRs that are unable to accommodate two-way traffic, either as a one-lane, two-way operation or lanes too narrow to accommodate traffic, may help to prevent head-on and sideswipe collisions.

4.5.12 Construct Wildlife Fencing

Wildlife fences help to prevent livestock and wildlife from straying onto highways. This countermeasure benefits both the motorized and non-motorized HRRR users.

4.5.13 Install or Modify Culverts to Accommodate Wildlife Crossing

A mix of underpasses, bridge extensions, culvert installations, and culvert modifications can be used to facilitate wildlife movement and reduce collisions on HRRRs associated with wildlife.

73 Iowa Department of Transportation. Design Manual – Chapter 6. 2001.

48

Cost-Effectiveness Values for Capital Improvement Safety Treatments.

A variety of capital improvement treatments are reputed to positively influence safety. The most commonly identified treatments included intersection conversion (from traditional intersections to roundabouts, interchanges, or J-Turn configurations). Each of these treatments is based on converting a traditional intersection (assumed to be a four-leg signalized intersection).

For the purposes of the cost effective evaluation, the HSM base models for a lower volume intersection (1000 VPD for both roads) as well as the higher volume (8000 VPD for major and 1000 VPD for minor) were again incorporated into this analysis. It is unlikely that an expensive interchange could be justified at a low volume intersection, but for consistency this analysis was included. An analysis used a service life of 20 years; however, the interchange would be likely to have a 25 to 30 year life, so a 10 percent salvage value was included for this treatment.

In addition to the intersection capital improvements, several additional treatments were explored with the expectation of performing a cost-effectiveness assessment, but in each case a critical component needed for the analysis could not be located. In most cases, the topic was too broad (i.e. modify horizontal and/or vertical geometry), and so the safety expectations for the treatment could not be identified.

The following table demonstrates the results of the cost-effectiveness analysis for these capital improvement treatments.

Table 17: Optimal (HM Base Condition) Segment Locations for Capital Improvement Safety Treatments


Lower Volume (AADT=1000 VPD for major and minor), Optimal (HSM Base Conditions)

Convert a Traditional Stop Intersection into a J-turn 46.1 Convert a Traditional Signalized Intersection into a J-turn 45.4 Convert a Traditional Stop Intersection to a Roundabout 4.8 Convert a Traditional Signalized Intersection into a Roundabout

4.8

Reconstruct At-Grade Intersection to Interchange** 0.1 Higher Volume (AADT=8000 VPD for major and 1000 VPD for minor),

Optimal (HSM Base Conditions) Convert a Traditional Stop Intersection into a J-turn 161.4 Convert a Traditional Signalized Intersection into a J-turn 159.1 Convert a Traditional Stop Intersection to a Roundabout 16.8 Convert a Traditional Signalized Intersection into a Roundabout

16.6

Reconstruct At-Grade Intersection to Interchange 0.4 *Capital Improvement treatment evaluations based on a service life of 20 years. ** Calculations included a salvage value of $1,000,000.

49

Figure 21. Pedestrian Using a Paved Shoulder Adjacent to a Rural Roadway

4.6 Non-Motorized User Safety Treatments

Non-motorized users generally consist of cyclists and pedestrians but also include equestrian, horse-drawn buggies, in-line skaters, and other methods. Their needs must be addressed due to increased risks they encounter on rural roads. Rural pedestrian crashes are nearly twice as likely to result in a fatality and rural bicycle crashes are three times as likely to result in a fatality compared to urban crashes.74 Risky riding and walking behaviors may indicate that the transportation infrastructure does not adequately address the safety and mobility needs of non-motorized users.

4.6.1 Construct Adjacent Shared-Use Paths

A 2006 study by the UNC Highway Safety Research Center identified the most common crash type involving pedestrians on rural roads was "walking along the roadway." A shared-use path physically separates the non-motorized user from vehicles and serves as part of a transportation circulation system. The 2012 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities defines a shared-use path as being physically separated from motor vehicular traffic with an open space or barrier (AASHTO, 2012). Shared-use paths should always be designed to include pedestrians even if the primary anticipated users are bicyclists.75

4.6.2 Construct Shoulders for Non-Motorized Users

Although physically separating cyclists and pedestrians from vehicles is ideal, often times there is not adequate right-of-way for a separate path. Paved shoulders provide separated space for motorized and non-motorized users along the roadway and have been shown to be an effective countermeasure in reducing all crash types.76 However, an agency should consider that it may be more economically feasible to construct a separated parallel path for pedestrians and bicyclists, which are designed to carry lighter loads, than shoulders designed for heavy loads.

74 UNC Highway Safety Research Center Factors Contributing to Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes on Rural Highways – Final Report, http://www.hsisinfo.org/pdf/HSIS-Rural-PedBike-Final-Report.pdf 75 FHWA. Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access. Accessed February 20, 2013. 76 FHWA. Non-Motorized User Safety, a Manual for Local Rural Road Owners.

http://www.hsisinfo.org/pdf/HSIS-Rural-PedBike-Final-Report.pdf

50

Figure 22. Curb Extensions

4.6.3 Construct Exclusive Bicycle Lanes

Bike lanes are defined as a portion of the roadway which has been designated by striping, signing and pavement marking for the preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists. Bicycle lanes make the movements of both motorists and bicyclists more predictable and as with other bicycle facilities there are advantages to all road users in striping them on the roadway.77

4.6.4 Construct Bicycle Trail Grade Separation Structures

This treatment can be an overpass or underpass structure that eliminates conflicts with motorized vehicles.

4.6.5 Construct Sidewalks

Providing sidewalks and associated accommodations for pedestrians along heavily traveled corridors gives refuge for pedestrians and helps to enhance roadway operations, mobility, and safety for motorists. Sidewalks are especially useful at locations with heavy pedestrian volumes, such as schools and community centers located on rural roads.

4.6.6 Provide Crosswalks at Targeted Locations

Non-motorized users, particularly pedestrians, tend to travel along the most direct route possible to minimize the time needed to reach their destination. If crossings do not provide safe and accessible routes that directly connect the destinations people want to reach, many non-motorized users may cross roadways outside of crosswalks. Identifying ideal locations for pedestrians to safely cross and installing crosswalks provides pedestrians and cyclists an incentive to cross at locations where motorists would be more likely to encounter them while minimizing the walking time to reach their destination.

4.6.7 Install Curb Extensions

Curb extensions (also known as bulb-outs) extend the sidewalk or curb line out into the parking lane, which reduces the effective street width. Curb extensions may improve pedestrian crossings by reducing the pedestrian crossing distance, improving the ability of pedestrians and motorists to see each other, and reducing the time that

77 http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/engineering/facilities-bikelanes.cfm. Accessed February 20, 2013.

http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/engineering/facilities-bikelanes.cfm

51

pedestrians are in the street.78 Similar to other treatments in this report that are typically installed in urban locations, there were instances where agencies used this treatment on a HRRR. These were instances where the roadway crosses a city or town without changing functional classification and is still technically a HRRR.

4.6.8 Install Pedestrian Signal Heads to Existing Signalized Intersections

Pedestrian signal heads provide special types of traffic signal indications exclusively intended for controlling pedestrian traffic and can reduce the chances a non-motorized user enters a roadway with active traffic.

4.6.9 Other Considerations for Non-Motorized Uses

Applying a Systemic Approach to Non-Motorized Users on Rural Roads79

The challenge in addressing non-motorized safety in rural areas is that crashes involving non-motorized road users tend to be widely dispersed. The significant number of lane-miles and the dispersed nature of crashes make it difficult to target specific locations for assessment and improvement. Therefore, applying a systemic approach to addressing the safety of non-motorized users is beneficial to proactively address widespread safety issues and cost-effectively minimize crash potential. Rather than focus on specific crash locations, a systemic approach targets common risk factors in crashes throughout the roadway network. A systemic improvement is one that is widely implemented based on high risk roadway features that are correlated with particular crash types rather than crash frequency. The systemic problem identification entails a system-wide crash analysis targeting specific crash characteristics at the system level. For example, an evaluation of rural crash data may reveal crashes involving cyclists riding against traffic and motorized traffic exiting driveways on a corridor. Rather than target the specific locations where crashes occurred, the systemic approach identifies the risk factors associated with all of the crashes along the corridor and addresses the risk on a corridor basis (at locations that already experienced crashes and those with similar characteristics having the potential for similar crashes).

Rumble Strips

An agency should consider the following recommendations when installing rumble strips on roadways that are a bicycle route or have a significant number of cyclists80:

78 FHWA website. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/saferjourney/library/countermeasures/23.htm. Accessed February 20, 2013. 79 FHWA. Non-Motorized User Safety, a Manual for Local Rural Road Owners. 80 FHWA Technical Advisory, Shoulder and Edge Line Rumble Strips http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/pavement/rumble_strips/t504039/

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/saferjourney/library/countermeasures/23.htm

52

Figure 23. Shared Arrow Lane Marking

• Many times a cyclist will ride on the shoulder to avoid conflicts with vehicles. However, cyclists are legally allowed to ride in the travel lane. Gaps in the rumble strips allow a cyclist to cross from a shoulder to a travel lane.

• An agency could install edge line rumble strips instead of constructing rumble strips outside the white edge line. However this could cause more nuisance noise as more vehicles would traverse the rumble strips more often.

• Narrower transverse width on the rumble strips could provide more usable shoulder width for cyclists. Crash modification factors have not been developed for these adjustments, but it is anticipated they will have a somewhat reduced effectiveness in alerting drivers, which is considered a reasonable tradeoff for an agency attempting to balance the needs of all road users.

• FHWA’s Technical Advisory: Shoulder and Edge Line Rumble Strips advises that rumble strips should not be installed where there is a shoulder width of less than 4 feet 81

Warning Signs and Pavement Markings

Warning signs may be used to alert motorists of the non-motorized users on rural roadways that are bike routes or have a significant number of cyclists. Agencies should consult at a minimum the 2012 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities; the FHWA Manual: Non-Motorized User Safety, a Manual for Local Rural Road Owners; the MUTCD; and may want to consider the following recommendations:

• Place signs near major intersecting routes where there are higher volumes of entering traffic.

• At locations where sight distance and expectancy of encountering a non-motorized user may be limited, such as in advanced of horizontal and vertical curves.

• “Bicycles May Use Full Lane” signs and Shared Lane Markings (Sharrows) may be installed on roadways with a posted speed limit of 35 mph or less. Shared Lane Markings shall not be used on shoulders or designated bike lanes.

81 FHWA Technical Advisory: Shoulder and Edge Line Rumble Strips: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/pavement/rumble_strips/t504039/

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/pavement/rumble_strips/t504039/

53

Additional Safety Treatments Not Identified in the Survey Although not identified by users of the survey as treatments used in the field, other safety treatments for non-motorized users could be used on rural roads: • Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (also known as the High intensity Activated crosswalk -- or

HAWK)82 • Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons83 • Staggered and Raised Median Islands84

Short-Range Low-Cost Treatments Before funding is available for long-term treatments such as paved shoulders or separated paths, there are some low-cost, short-term treatments that could be deployed immediately to address non-motorized user safety. These include: • Mow and maintain unpaved shoulders to facilitate pedestrian travel. • Maintain existing striping at crosswalks • At rural school locations, utilize crossing guards and educate students on safe walking,

bicycling, and crossing practices. • Conduct targeted enforcement zones near schools or other high risk locations

Cost-Effectiveness Values for Non-Motorized User Safety Treatments.

As part of the treatment identification for the cost-effectiveness analysis, non-motorized user treatments were identified that were applicable to HRRR locations and had the potential for improving the overall safety of the facility. The project team acquired cost and service life information, as available, for these treatments but could not locate consistent information regarding the safety effects of the treatment on rural roads. For example, studies suggest that the placement of exclusive bicycle lanes could reduce pedestrian and bicycle crashes by as much as 25 to 35 percent; however, less information is known about the number of pedestrian and bicycle crashes in rural locations. As a result, the specific cost-effectiveness of any of the non-motorized user safety treatments are not identified. However, the treatments have been grouped according to the expected value of their safety benefit in Table 18. More information on the terms “Proven Safety Effect” and “Expected Safety Effect” can be found in Section 4.7.

82 FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/fhwa_sa_12_012.htm 83 FHWA: Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/resources/techsum/fhwasa09009/ 84FHWA: Safety Benefits of raised Medians and Pedestrian Refuge Areas http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/medians_trifold/

54

Table 19. Effects of Treatments for Non-Motorized Users on Rural Roads Proven Safety Effect

• Construct adjacent shared used paths • Construct bicycle trail grade separation structures • Install pedestrian signal heads to existing signalized intersections • Construct Sidewalks • Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (also known as the High intensity Activated crosswalk --or HAWK) • Staggered and Raised Median Islands • Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFBs)

Expected Safety Effect • Construct shoulders for non-motorized users • Construct exclusive bicycle lanes • Provide Crosswalks at Targeted Locations • Construct curb extensions

4.7 Research on Treatments Currently Under Development

As a result of the literature review, and through recommendations by the survey respondents, additional treatments were identified that may also be effective safety countermeasures. Many of these treatments show promise as they have been evaluated for urban conditions or are similar to treatments that are known to be effective safety countermeasures. Several treatments noted have not been fully evaluated, nor are they compliant with the MUTCD, for instance the No Reckless Driving sign; however, they do show some mixed results.85

For the purposes of the cost-effectiveness assessment, initial costs, maintenance costs, service life, frequency of maintenance, and predicted number of crashes prevented on rural roads must be available to adequately estimate the cost savings. For many of these additional treatments, one or more of the input values for the cost-effectiveness assessment could not be determined. Consequently, a cost-effectiveness evaluation could not be performed on the treatment; however, previous research efforts and use of the application suggest that the treatment merits consideration.

The summaries in Tables 20-25 identify many of these additional treatments and, based on the information available, identify expected safety effectiveness. A treatment may be in more than one category. If a treatment is expected to reduce crashes and has a proven safety effect for other similar applications or for a known subset of crashes (such as pedestrian or animal crashes only), it is listed as “proven” in the summary tables. In some cases, such as the capital

85 One treatment - Install Raised Pavement Markers - has been shown through a National Cooperative Highway Research Program study to significantly increase crashes in horizontal curves.

55

improvement treatments, the cost of the project is site-specific, and even though the treatment has proven safety effects, a cost-effectiveness assessment is not feasible for the broad category.

If a treatment has indications that it can be expected to reduce crashes, but has some conflicting reports as to its associated safety effects or has been deployed and observed to be effective but no scientific analysis is available, this treatment is designated as “expected.” Often treatments are deployed collectively, such as widening a shoulder and resurfacing a roadway, as part of the same project. When this occurs, the individual safety effects are not known. Treatments of this nature are also included in the “expected” list.

For new treatments that still need to be tested and for which the safety effect is unknown, the designation of “promising” is shown. A treatment category that is too broad or not enough is known about an associated safety performance is shown as “unknown.”

Table 20. Additional Intersection-Specific Infrastructure Safety Treatments

Proven Safety Effect • Install offset (or channelized) left-turn lane • Improve horizontal intersection alignment • Convert a four-leg intersection into two, three-leg intersections • Install acceleration lanes • Install dynamic advanced intersection warning system • Change horizontal and/or vertical alignment at intersection • Install “Stop Ahead” pavement markings • Use raised median to restrict turning movements • Provide advanced dilemma zone detection for rural high speed signalized approaches • Install railroad crossing hardware where not currently present • Upgrade existing railroad crossing hardware and warning systems • Remove an existing railroad grade crossing • Channelization of major and minor roads (physical or painted) • Upgrade to larger stop signs • Improve traffic signal visibility (larger diameter lens or install back plate)

Expected Safety Effect • Improve sight distance and conspicuity at railroad grade crossings • Implement lane narrowing through rumble strips and painted median at rural stop-controlled

approaches • Install a splitter island • Install priority control systems for emergency vehicles

56

Table 21. Additional Signing and Pavement Marking Safety Treatments

Proven Safety Effect • Install raised pavement markers along the centerline at horizontal curve locations * • Upgrade signs (increase size or improve conspicuity)

Expected Safety Effect • Install raised pavement markers * • Use of supplemental warning signs

Promising Safety Effect • Install icy curve warning system • Convert standard edge lines to wider edge lines ** • Convert standard centerlines to wider centerline markings **

* The application of the raised pavement markers (RPMs) has a direct influence on associated safety. The literature regarding this treatment has conflicting information (some suggests that the use of RPMs reduce crashes and others suggest they increase crashes). For some applications, such as to delineate sharp horizontal curves, the RPM has a proven safety effect. The contradicting reports regarding safety apply to locations where the RPMs are used along an entire corridor. As a result, more research is needed for this treatment and so it has been indicated as an “expected” effect rather than a “proven” one.

** Research is currently nearing completion on this topic and may be available by the end of 2013.

Table 22. Additional Pavement and Shoulder Resurfacing and Widening Infrastructure Safety Treatments

Proven Safety Effect • Transverse rumble strips • Improve superelevation at horizontal curve locations • Increase shoulder width • Install or maintain a graded shoulder

Expected Safety Effect • Widen an existing paved shoulder • Install targeted longitudinal rumble strips at key locations (such as on the outside of horizontal

curves only) • Re-grade or re-condition gravel lanes • Provide turnout areas

Table 23. Additional Roadside Infrastructure Safety Treatments

Proven Safety Effect • Relocate select hazardous utility poles • Convert culvert headwalls to traversable end treatments • Modify end treatments of existing guardrail • Install median cable barrier • Widen existing median or construct median • Install impact attenuation devices at select roadside locations • Install bridge end guardrail

Expected Safety Effect • Improve sight distance by maintaining roadside vegetation • Construct wildlife fencing

57

• Install of modify culverts to accommodate wildlife crossing Unknown Safety Effect

• Remove guardrail

Table 24. Additional Capital Improvement Safety Treatments

Proven Safety Effect • Improve horizontal intersection alignment • Convert a four-leg intersection into two three-leg intersections • Modify horizontal / vertical geometry • Convert a four-lane road into a three-lane road with one travel lane in each direction plus a

continuous left-turn lane Expected Safety Effect

• Convert a four-lane road into a five-lane road with two travel lanes in each direction plus a continuous left-turn lane

• Remove compound curves • Mitigate ground water to prevent icing • Construct wildlife fencing • Install of modify culverts to accommodate wildlife crossing

In addition to the treatments listed above, State and local agencies were asked to provide more detail related to experimental research on new cost effective improvements on HRRRs. State research and evaluation are being conducted on the following safety treatments:

1. Safety performance of high friction surface treatments beyond horizontal curves such as intersection approaches.

2. Safety performance of experimental low-cost measures at horizontal curves, such as signing or marking treatments.

3. The costs of implementation of safety edge without being integral to base pavement--being placed adjacent to existing pavement.

4. Durability and retro-reflectivity of pavement marking materials (including rumble stripes).

5. Comparing cost-effectiveness of lower cost static signing with active curve warning devices.

Local and tribal agency research and evaluation includes:

1. Effects of surface treatments in small communities with regard to traffic calming. 2. Use of RPM's in conjunction with edge-line striping (5 inch) and additional 1 foot paved

shoulder in dark, foggy or raining conditions. The RPMs are placed outside the edge line. Early data has shown about a 70-80 percent reduction in run-off-road crashes.

3. Use of vehicle activated flashers. 4. Use of in-road lights on center line. 5. Use of red pavement markings on paved roads to reduce speeds.

58

6. Using the safety edge while wedging to correct quarter crown and increase pavement width.

7. Use of NO RECKLESS DRIVING signs installed on two mountain roads that remind drivers that reckless driving is prohibited. The signs display the appropriate motor vehicle law sections of the State's code.

4.8 Non-Infrastructure Practices and Unique Agency Experiences

The survey provided some noteworthy examples of practices and experiences otherwise not captured in this report, such as the following.

Development of Agency-Wide Specifications. In 2012, the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD) adopted a statewide policy for systemic deployment of rumble strips and cable median barriers on divided highways. The AHTD also developed a FHWA Roadway Departure Safety Implementation Plan, which will contribute to the goal to implement low-cost safety improvements on HRRR, such as curve signs or delineation. Deployment of these treatments continues and due to the recent implementation date, an evaluation study has not been completed, but is planned for the future.

Innovative Planning Methods. Thurston County in Washington State completed a pilot project using a systemic safety planning process tool. The tool enabled the county to develop a proactive safety plan, which contrasts with their past planning methods that were reactive to incidents and crash rates. County officials explained that for a local agency with limited resources, the results from the systemic planning tool proved more reasonable to implement than other analysis guidelines.

The County Road Administration Board (CRAB) in the State of Washington maintains a database with road feature data for all counties which could be readily adapted to conduct HSM analyses and systemic safety planning. The CRAB currently reports a variety of data to the State DOT on pavement management and other issues and may be able to provide performance data on how well safety improvements are performing after they were implemented on a roadway or intersection.

Plan4Safety is a cloud-based crash analysis tool developed at Rutgers University through New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) funding to allow Web-based access to the State crash data system by local agencies and Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Users are able to filter the data down to a region, county, or project-specific area and conduct an analysis on any data field to identify historical crash trends and isolate areas of over-representations. This tool assists local agencies in making data-driven decisions from site selection/network screening to specific project analysis and countermeasure selection.

59

The Wisconsin Department of Transportation partnered with the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Traffic Operations and Safety Laboratory (UW TOPS Lab) to develop a comprehensive statewide statistical analysis of rural roadway segments to target the highest priority corridors for a redeveloped HRRRP. This systemic analysis merges local and State crash mapping and crash data resources to create a prioritized ranking of over 1,000 eligible rural road corridors. Low-cost safety treatments are then targeted for quick implementation (approximate 1 year timeline) on the highest-ranking corridors. This redeveloped and data-driven approach to systemic safety treatment implementations will be launched at full scale for Wisconsin's State FY 2014 (July-June). The post-prioritization treatment implementation process is currently being tested on two corridors in 2013.

The NJDOT funds a Transportation Safety Resource Center at Rutgers University that provides support to MPOs and local agencies in identifying and developing their HRRR safety projects. Past Rutgers activities included conducting network screenings, facilitating road safety audits, supporting systemic safety analysis and supporting HSM analysis of the local roadway agencies and MPOs. Rutgers utilizes FHWA resources and support, which includes the crash cost memorandum, the technical resource center, roadway safety audit guidance, and hands-on support from the FHWA NJ Division Office.

4.9 Cost versus Cost-Effectiveness

Based on feedback from the TOWG, many agencies may not be able to provide funding for treatments that have the highest BCR. Agencies may be interested in identifying not only cost effective safety treatments, but those that have a low costs to meet their available funding. Safety treatments were grouped into those having low, medium, and high costs shown Table 24. Although the cost of a treatment could vary significantly based on the individual location or agency, the estimated costs were broken down into the following ranges:

• Low: between $0 to $20,000 • Medium: between $20,001 to $100,000 • High: $100,001 and up

Table 25. Safety Treatment Implementation Ranked Costs

Safety Treatment Implementation Cost Intersection-Specific Safety Infrastructure Treatments Low Medium High

Install a Roundabout Improve Horizontal Intersection Alignment Convert a Four-leg Intersection into Two, Three-leg Intersections Convert a Traditional Intersection into a J-Turn Intersection Install Left-Turn Lane Install Offset (or Channelized) Left-Turn Lane Install Right-Turn Lane Install Bypass Lane Provide Flashing Beacons at Intersection Approaches Provide Intersection Lighting

60

Safety Treatment Implementation Cost Install Acceleration or Deceleration Lanes Install Traffic Signals Install Dynamic Advanced Intersection Warning System Provide a Stop Bar on Minor-Road Approaches Relocate an Existing Stop Bar on Minor Approach Change Horizontal and/or Vertical Alignment Improve Sight Distance within Sight Triangle Install Stop Ahead Pavement Markings Install a Splitter Island Install Advanced Intersection Warning Signs Convert Minor-Road Stop Control to All-Way Stop Control Channelization of Major- and Minor-Roads (Physical or Painted) Use Raised Median to Restrict Turning Movements Improve Sight Distance and Conspicuity at Railroad Grade Crossings Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for Rural High Speed Signalized Approaches

Implement Lane Narrowing through Rumble Strips and Painted Median at Rural Stop-Controlled Approaches

Upgrade to Larger Stop Signs Double Use of Stop Signs Install Retro-reflective Strips on Sign Posts Provide Upcoming Road Names on Advanced Warning Signs Improve Traffic Signal Visibility (Larger Diameter Lens or Install Back Plate)

Install Priority Control Systems for Emergency Vehicles Install Railroad Crossing Hardware and Warning Systems Where They Currently Do Not Exist

Upgrade Existing Railroad Crossing Hardware and Warning Systems Remove an Existing Railroad Grade Crossing

Signing and Pavement Marking Safety Treatments Install Curve Warning signs Install Chevrons Signs Install/Upgrade Curve Warning Signs with Fluorescent Yellow Sheeting Double Use of Advanced Warning Signs for Curves or Intersections Install Edge Line Markings Install Centerline Markings Install Centerline and Edge Line Markings Install Raised Pavement Markers Install Post-Mounted Delineators at Horizontal Curves Install Wider Pavement Markings (With or Without Rumble Strips) Install Icy Curve Warning System

61

Safety Treatment Implementation Cost Install Arrow Boards at Horizontal Curve Locations Use of Supplemental Warning Signs Optical Speed Bars

Pavement and Shoulder Resurfacing and Widening Infrastructure Safety Treatments Improve Pavement Friction/Increase Skid Resistance Install a Safety Edge Install Rumble Strips Widen Existing Travel Lanes by 2 Feet or Less per Lane Add Paved Shoulder Improve Superelevation at Horizontal Curve Locations Install Passing or Climbing Lanes Increase Shoulder Width Install or Maintain a Graded Shoulder Install Targeted Longitudinal Rumble Strips at Key Locations (Such as on the Outside of Horizontal Curves Only)

Regrade or Recondition Gravel Lanes Provide Turnout Areas

Roadside Infrastructure Safety Treatments Create or Increase Clear Zone Remove or Shield Obstacles in Clear Zone Flatten Road Sideslope Relocate Select Hazardous Utility Poles Improve Sight Distance by Maintaining Roadside Vegetation Convert Culvert Headwalls to Traversable End Treatments Modify End Treatments of Existing Guardrail Install Concrete Median Barrier Install Median Guardrail Install Median Cable Barrier Widen Existing Median or Construct Median Install Impact Attenuation Devices at Select Roadside Hazard Locations (Such as Exposed Bridge Columns)

Remove Guardrail Capital Improvement Safety Treatments

Install a Roundabout Improve Horizontal Intersection Alignment Convert a Four-leg Intersection into Two, Three-leg Intersections Reconstruct At-Grade Intersection to an Interchange Modify Horizontal/Vertical Geometry Convert a Four-Lane, Two-Way Road into a Three-Lane Road With One Lane in Each Direction of Travel Plus a Continuous Two-Way, Left-Turn Lane (Road Diet)

62

Safety Treatment Implementation Cost Convert a Four-Lane, Two-Way Road into a Five-Lane Road with Two Lanes in Each Direction of Travel Plus a Continuous TWLTL OR Convert a Two-Lane, Two-Way Road into a Three-Lane Road Plus a Continuous TWLTL

Convert a Traditional Intersection into a J-Turn Intersection Remove Compound Horizontal Curves Mitigate Ground Water to Prevent Ponding and/or Icing Widen Functionally Obsolete Bridges

Non-Motorized User Safety Treatments Install Pedestrian Signal Heads to Existing Signalized Intersections Construct Adjacent Shared-Use Paths Construct Exclusive Bicycle Lanes Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (also known as the High intensity Activated crossWalK -- or HAWK)

Staggered and Raised Median Islands Construct Shared Use Paved Shoulders for Horse & Buggy Road Users or Bicyclists

Construct Bicycle Trail Grade Separation Structures Build Sidewalks

63

5 Conclusion Several factors exist that influence the implementation of safety treatments on HRRRs. Some of the most prevalent challenges cited by State, local, and tribal agencies include having an adequate crash records system to identify high risk locations, funding safety treatments, having insufficient staff to meet the demands of program administration, and navigating the procurement process.

Despite the obstacles identified by these agencies, fatalities on rural roads have declined by 38 percent since 2005. Practitioners have used rural-specific countermeasures to help sustain this trend and have applied them in a variety of ways associated with specific traffic volume and roadway characteristics. Agencies continue to pursue the viability of other safety countermeasures by experimentation and research, sometimes by successfully applying countermeasures associated with urban routes.

This report is not an exhaustive list of treatments. There are many options available to an agency when selecting treatments and they need to conduct analysis and studies (Such as Road Safety Audits) for the individual locations. This is needed to determine the most effective treatment based on the individual site characteristics which may not be the most cost effective treatment listed in this report.

5.1 Next Steps

The legislation requires that the findings associated with this report will serve as the basis for developing a Manual to further assist State, local, and tribal governments in pursuing and implementing HRRR safety treatments. This manual will be developed within 6 months of submitting this report. To ensure that agencies will be aware of the manual upon publication, a marketing strategy will be developed in association with the Manual and will serve as a blueprint for outreach to practitioners and as a promotional tool for the implementation of the cost effective safety treatments.

Appendix A: SAFETEA-LU and MAP-21 Legislation Related to HRRRs

64

Appendix A - SAFETEA-LU and MAP-21 Legislation Related to HRRRs

This appendix details the SAFETEA-LU and MAP-21 legislation for the Highway Safety Improvement Program and more specifically, the High Risk Rural Roads Program.

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA:LU)

Title 23 Sec. 148 Highway Safety Improvement Program

(a) Definitions.—In this section, the following definitions apply:

(1) High risk rural road.—The term “high risk rural road” means any roadway functionally classified as a rural major or minor collector or a rural local road—

(A) on which the accident rate for fatalities and incapacitating injuries exceeds the statewide average for those functional classes of roadway; or

(B) that will likely have increases in traffic volume that are likely to create an accident rate for fatalities and incapacitating injuries that exceeds the statewide average for those functional classes of roadway.

(2) Highway safety improvement program.—The term “highway safety

improvement program” means the program carried out under this section. (3) Highway safety improvement project.—

(A) In general.—The term “highway safety improvement project” means a project described in the State strategic highway safety plan that—

(i) corrects or improves a hazardous road location or feature; or (ii) addresses a highway safety problem.

(B) Inclusions.—The term “highway safety improvement project” includes a project for one or more of the following:

(i) An intersection safety improvement. (ii) Pavement and shoulder widening (including addition of a passing lane to

remedy an unsafe condition). (iii) Installation of rumble strips or another warning device, if the rumble strips

or other warning devices do not adversely affect the safety or mobility of bicyclists, pedestrians, and the disabled.

(iv) Installation of a skid-resistant surface at an intersection or other location with a high frequency of accidents.

(v) An improvement for pedestrian or bicyclist safety or safety of the disabled. (vi) Construction of any project for the elimination of hazards at a railway-

highway crossing that is eligible for funding under section 130, including the separation or protection of grades at railway-highway crossings.

(vii) Construction of a railway-highway crossing safety feature, including installation of protective devices.

(viii) The conduct of a model traffic enforcement activity at a railway-highway crossing.

(ix) Construction of a traffic calming feature.


65

(x) Elimination of a roadside obstacle. (xi) Improvement of highway signage and pavement markings. (xii) Installation of a priority control system for emergency vehicles at

signalized intersections. (xiii) Installation of a traffic control or other warning device at a location with

high accident potential. (xiv) Safety-conscious planning. (xv) Improvement in the collection and analysis of crash data. (xvi) Planning integrated interoperable emergency communications equipment,

operational activities, or traffic enforcement activities (including police assistance) relating to workzone safety.

(xvii) Installation of guardrails, barriers (including barriers between construction work zones and traffic lanes for the safety of motorists and workers), and crash attenuators.

(xviii) The addition or retrofitting of structures or other measures to eliminate or reduce accidents involving vehicles and wildlife.

(xix) Installation and maintenance of signs (including fluorescent, yellow-green signs) at pedestrian-bicycle crossings and in school zones.

(xx) Construction and yellow-green signs at pedestrian-bicycle crossings and in school zones.

(xxi) Construction and operational improvements on high risk rural roads.

(4) Safety project under any other section.— (A) In general.—The term “safety project under any other section” means a

project carried out for the purpose of safety under any other section of this title. (B) Inclusion.—The term “safety project under any other section” includes a

project to promote the awareness of the public and educate the public concerning highway safety matters (including motorcyclist safety) and a project to enforce highway safety laws.

(5) State highway safety improvement program.—The term “State highway safety

improvement program” means projects or strategies included in the State strategic highway safety plan carried out as part of the State transportation improvement program under section 135(g).

(6) State strategic highway safety plan.—The term “State strategic highway safety

plan” means a plan developed by the State transportation department that— (A) is developed after consultation with—

(i) a highway safety representative of the Governor of the State; (ii) regional transportation planning organizations and metropolitan planning

organizations, if any; (iii) representatives of major modes of transportation; (iv) State and local traffic enforcement officials; (v) persons responsible for administering section 130 at the State level; (vi) representatives conducting Operation Lifesaver;


66

(vii) representatives conducting a motor carrier safety program under section 31102, 31106, or 31309 of title 49;

(viii) motor vehicle administration agencies; and (ix) other major State and local safety stakeholders;

(B) analyzes and makes effective use of State, regional, or local crash data; (C) addresses engineering, management, operation, education, enforcement, and

emergency services elements (including integrated, interoperable emergency communications) of highway safety as key factors in evaluating highway projects;

(D) considers safety needs of, and high-fatality segments of, public roads; (E) considers the results of State, regional, or local transportation and highway

safety planning processes; (F) describes a program of projects or strategies to reduce or eliminate safety

hazards; (G) is approved by the Governor of the State or a responsible State agency; and (H) is consistent with the requirements of section 135(g).

(b) Program.—

(1) In general.—The Secretary shall carry out a highway safety improvement program.

(2) Purpose.—The purpose of the highway safety improvement program shall be to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public roads.

(c) Eligibility.—

(1) In general.—To obligate funds apportioned under section 104(b)(5) to carry out this section, a State shall have in effect a State highway safety improvement program under which the State—

(A) develops and implements a State strategic highway safety plan that identifies and analyzes highway safety problems and opportunities as provided in paragraph (2);

(B) produces a program of projects or strategies to reduce identified safety problems;

(C) evaluates the plan on a regular basis to ensure the accuracy of the data and priority of proposed improvements; and

(D) submits to the Secretary an annual report that— (i) describes, in a clearly understandable fashion, not less than 5 percent of

locations determined by the State, using criteria established in accordance with paragraph (2)(B)(ii), as exhibiting the most severe safety needs; and

(ii) contains an assessment of— (I) potential remedies to hazardous locations identified; (II) estimated costs associated with those remedies; and (III) impediments to implementation other than cost associated with those

remedies.

(2) Identification and analysis of highway safety problems and opportunities.—As part of the State strategic highway safety plan, a State shall—


67

(A) have in place a crash data system with the ability to perform safety problem identification and countermeasure analysis;

(B) based on the analysis required by subparagraph (A)— (i) identify hazardous locations, sections, and elements (including roadside

obstacles, railway-highway crossing needs, and unmarked or poorly marked roads) that constitute a danger to motorists (including motorcyclists), bicyclists, pedestrians, and other highway users; and

(ii) using such criteria as the State determines to be appropriate, establish the relative severity of those locations, in terms of accidents, injuries, deaths, traffic volume levels, and other relevant data; (C) adopt strategic and performance-based goals that—

(i) address traffic safety, including behavioral and infrastructure problems and opportunities on all public roads;

(ii) focus resources on areas of greatest need; and (iii) are coordinated with other State highway safety programs;

(D) advance the capabilities of the State for traffic records data collection, analysis, and integration with other sources of safety data (such as road inventories) in a manner that—

(i) complements the State highway safety program under chapter 4 and the commercial vehicle safety plan under section 31102 of title 49;

(ii) includes all public roads; (iii) identifies hazardous locations, sections, and elements on public roads that

constitute a danger to motorists (including motorcyclists), bicyclists, pedestrians, the disabled, and other highway users; and

(iv) includes a means of identifying the relative severity of hazardous locations described in clause (iii) in terms of accidents, injuries, deaths, and traffic volume levels; (E)(i) determine priorities for the correction of hazardous road locations, sections,

and elements (including railway-highway crossing improvements), as identified through crash data analysis;

(ii) identify opportunities for preventing the development of such hazardous conditions; and

(iii) establish and implement a schedule of highway safety improvement projects for hazard correction and hazard prevention; and

(F)(i) establish an evaluation process to analyze and assess results achieved by highway safety improvement projects carried out in accordance with procedures and criteria established by this section; and

(ii) use the information obtained under clause (i) in setting priorities for highway safety improvement projects.

(d) Eligible Projects.—

(1) In general.—A State may obligate funds apportioned to the State under section 104(b)(5) to carry out—

(A) any highway safety improvement project on any public road or publicly owned bicycle or pedestrian pathway or trail; or

(B) as provided in subsection (e), other safety projects.


68

(2) Use of other funding for safety.—

(A) Effect of section.—Nothing in this section prohibits the use of funds made available under other provisions of this title for highway safety improvement projects.

(B) Use of other funds.—States are encouraged to address the full scope of their safety needs and opportunities by using funds made available under other provisions of this title (except a provision that specifically prohibits that use).

(e) Flexible Funding for States With a Strategic Highway Safety Plan.—

(1) In general.—To further the implementation of a State strategic highway safety plan, a State may use up to 10 percent of the amount of funds apportioned to the State under section 104(b)(5) for a fiscal year to carry out safety projects under any other section as provided in the State strategic highway safety plan if the State certifies that—

(A) the State has met needs in the State relating to railway-highway crossings; and

(B) the State has met the State's infrastructure safety needs relating to highway safety improvement projects.

(2) Other transportation and highway safety plans.—Nothing in this subsection

requires a State to revise any State process, plan, or program in effect on the date of enactment of this section.

(f) High Risk Rural Roads.—

(1) In general.—After making an apportionment under section 104(b)(5) for a fiscal year beginning after September 30, 2005, the Secretary shall ensure, from amounts made available to carry out this section for such fiscal year, that a total of $90,000,000 of such apportionment is set aside by the States, proportionally according to the share of each State of the total amount so apportioned, for use only for construction and operational improvements on high risk rural roads.

(2) Special rule.—A State may use funds apportioned to the State pursuant to this subsection for any project under this section if the State certifies to the Secretary that the State has met all of State needs for construction and operational improvements on high risk rural roads.

(g) Reports.— (1) In general.—A State shall submit to the Secretary a report that—

(A) describes progress being made to implement highway safety improvement projects under this section;

(B) assesses the effectiveness of those improvements; and (C) describes the extent to which the improvements funded under this section

contribute to the goals of— (i) reducing the number of fatalities on roadways; (ii) reducing the number of roadway-related injuries;


69

(iii) reducing the occurrences of roadway-related crashes; (iv) mitigating the consequences of roadway-related crashes; and (v) reducing the occurrences of crashes at railway-highway crossings.

(2) Contents; schedule.—The Secretary shall establish the content and schedule for a

report under paragraph (1). (3) Transparency.—The Secretary shall make reports submitted under subsection

(c)(1)(D) available to the public through— (A) the Web site of the Department; and (B) such other means as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.

(4) Discovery and admission into evidence of certain reports, surveys, and

information.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for any purpose directly relating to paragraph (1) or subsection (c)(1)(D), or published by the Secretary in accordance with paragraph (3), shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data.

(h) Federal Share of Highway Safety Improvement Projects.—Except as provided in sections

120 and 130, the Federal share of the cost of a highway safety improvement project carried out with funds apportioned to a State under section 104(b)(5) shall be 90 percent. (Added Pub. L. 93–87, title I, §129(b), Aug. 13, 1973, 87 Stat. 265; amended Pub. L. 95–599, title I, §§125, 129(d), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2705, 2707; Pub. L. 109–59, title I, §1401(a)(1), Aug. 10, 2005, 119 Stat. 1219.)

REFERENCES IN TEXT The date of enactment of this section, referred to in subsec. (e)(2), probably means the date of

enactment of Pub. L. 109–59, which amended this section generally and was approved Aug. 10, 2005.

AMENDMENTS 2005—Pub. L. 109–59 amended section catchline and text generally, substituting provisions

relating to a highway safety improvement program for provisions relating to development of the Great River Road, a national scenic and recreational highway.

1978—Subsec. (a)(5). Pub. L. 95–599, §125(b), inserted provision authorizing charging of a fee in certain cases to cover operational costs.

Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 95–599, §129(d), substituted “75 per centum” for “70 per centum”. Subsec. (h). Pub. L. 95–599, §125(a), added subsec. (h).

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1978 AMENDMENT


70

Amendment by section 129(d) of Pub. L. 95–599 effective with respect to obligations incurred after Nov. 6, 1978, see section 129(h) of Pub. L. 95–599, set out as a note under section 120 of this title.

TRANSITION Pub. L. 109–59, title I, §1401(d), formerly §1401(e), Aug. 10, 2005, 119 Stat. 1227,

renumbered §1401(d) by Pub. L. 110–244, title I, §101(s)(1), June 6, 2008, 122 Stat. 1577, provided that:

“(1) Implementation.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary [of Transportation] shall approve obligations of funds apportioned under section 104(b)(5) of title 23, United States Code (as added by subsection (b)), to carry out section 148 of that title, only if, not later than October 1 of the second fiscal year beginning after the date of enactment of this Act [Aug. 10, 2005], a State has developed and implemented a State strategic highway safety plan as required pursuant to section 148(c) of that title.

“(2) Interim period.— “(A) In general.—Before October 1 of the second fiscal year after the date of

enactment of this Act and until the date on which a State develops and implements a State strategic highway safety plan, the Secretary shall apportion funds to a State for the highway safety improvement program and the State may obligate funds apportioned to the State for the highway safety improvement program under section 148 for projects that were eligible for funding under sections 130 and 152 of that title, as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act.

“(B) No strategic highway safety plan.—If a State has not developed a strategic highway safety plan by October 1, 2007, the State shall receive for the highway safety improvement program for each subsequent fiscal year until the date of development of such plan an amount that equals the amount apportioned to the State for that program for fiscal year 2007.”

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Title 23 Sec. 1112

Highway Safety Improvement Program

(a) Definitions. - In this section, the following definitions apply: (1) High risk rural road. - The term "high risk rural road" means any roadway

functionally classified as a rural major or minor collector or a rural local road with significant safety risks, as defined by a State in accordance with an updated State strategic highway safety plan.

(2) Highway basemap. - The term "highway basemap" means a representation of all public roads that can be used to geolocate attribute data on a roadway.

(3) Highway safety improvement program. - The term "highway safety improvement program" means projects, activities, plans, and reports carried out under this section.


71

(4) Highway safety improvement project. - (A) In general. - The term "highway safety improvement project"

means strategies, activities, and projects on a public road that are consistent with a State strategic highway safety plan and -

(i) correct or improve a hazardous road location or feature; or (ii) address a highway safety problem.

(B) Inclusions. - The term "highway safety improvement project" includes, but is not limited to, a project for 1 or more of the following:

(i) An intersection safety improvement. (ii) Pavement and shoulder widening (including addition of a

passing lane to remedy an unsafe condition). (iii) Installation of rumble strips or another warning device, if

the rumble strips or other warning devices do not adversely affect the safety or mobility of bicyclists and pedestrians, including persons with disabilities.

(iv) Installation of a skid-resistant surface at an intersection or other location with a high frequency of crashes.

(v) An improvement for pedestrian or bicyclist safety or safety of persons with disabilities.

(vi) Construction and improvement of a railway-highway grade crossing safety feature, including installation of protective devices.

(vii) The conduct of a model traffic enforcement activity at a railway-highway crossing.

(viii) Construction of a traffic calming feature. (ix) Elimination of a roadside hazard. (x) Installation, replacement, and other improvement of

highway signage and pavement markings, or a project to maintain minimum levels of retroreflectivity, that addresses a highway safety problem consistent with a State strategic highway safety plan.

(xi) Installation of a priority control system for emergency vehicles at signalized intersections.

(xii) Installation of a traffic control or other warning device at a location with high crash potential.

(xiii) Transportation safety planning. (xiv) Collection, analysis, and improvement of safety data. (xv) Planning integrated interoperable emergency

communications equipment, operational activities, or traffic enforcement activities (including police assistance) relating to work zone safety.

(xvi) Installation of guardrails, barriers (including barriers between construction work zones and traffic lanes for the safety of road users and workers), and crash attenuators.


72

(xvii) The addition or retrofitting of structures or other measures to eliminate or reduce crashes involving vehicles and wildlife.

(xviii) Installation of yellow-green signs and signals at pedestrian and bicycle crossings and in school zones.

(xix) Construction and operational improvements on high risk rural roads.

(xx) Geometric improvements to a road for safety purposes that improve safety.

(xxi) A road safety audit. (xxii) Roadway safety infrastructure improvements consistent

with the recommendations included in the publication of the Federal Highway Administration entitled 'Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and Pedestrians' (FHWA-RD-01-103), dated May 2001 or as subsequently revised and updated.

(xxiii) Truck parking facilities eligible for funding under section 1401 of the MAP-21.

(xxiv) Systemic safety improvements. (5) Model inventory of roadway elements. - The term "model inventory of

roadway elements" means the listing and standardized coding by the Federal Highway Administration of roadway and traffic data elements critical to safety management, analysis, and decisionmaking.

(6) Project to maintain minimum levels of retroreflectivity. - The term "project to maintain minimum levels of retroreflectivity" means a project that is designed to maintain a highway sign or pavement marking retroreflectivity at or above the minimum levels prescribed in Federal or State regulations.

(7) Road safety audit. - The term "road safety audit" means a formal safety performance examination of an existing or future road or intersection by an independent multidisciplinary audit team.

(8) Road users. - The term "road user" means a motorist, passenger, public transportation operator or user, truck driver, bicyclist, motorcyclist, or pedestrian, including a person with disabilities.

(9) Safety data. - (A) In general. - The term "safety data" means crash, roadway, and

traffic data on a public road. (B) Inclusion. - The term "safety data" includes, in the case of a

railway-highway grade crossing, the characteristics of highway and train traffic, licensing, and vehicle data. (10) Safety project under any other section. -

(A) In general. - The term "safety project under any other section" means a project carried out for the purpose of safety under any other section of this title.


73

(B) Inclusion. - The term "safety project under any other section" includes -

(i) a project consistent with the State strategic highway safety plan that promotes the awareness of the public and educates the public concerning highway safety matters (including motorcycle safety);

(ii) a project to enforce highway safety laws; and (iii) a project to provide infrastructure and infrastructure-related

equipment to support emergency services. (11) State highway safety improvement program. - The term "State highway

safety improvement program" means a program of highway safety improvement projects, activities, plans and reports carried out as part of the Statewide transportation improvement program under section 135(g).

(12) State strategic highway safety plan. - The term "State strategic highway safety plan" means a comprehensive plan, based on safety data, developed by a State transportation department that -

(A) is developed after consultation with - (i) a highway safety representative of the Governor of the

State; (ii) regional transportation planning organizations and

metropolitan planning organizations, if any; (iii) representatives of major modes of transportation; (iv) State and local traffic enforcement officials; (v) a highway-rail grade crossing safety representative of the

Governor of the State; (vi) representatives conducting a motor carrier safety program

under section 31102, 31106, or 31309 of title 49; (vii) motor vehicle administration agencies; (viii) county transportation officials; (ix) State representatives of nonmotorized users; and (x) other major Federal, State, tribal, and local safety

stakeholders; (B) analyzes and makes effective use of State, regional, local, or tribal

safety data; (C) addresses engineering, management, operation, education,

enforcement, and emergency services elements (including integrated, interoperable emergency communications) of highway safety as key factors in evaluating highway projects;

(D) considers safety needs of, and high-fatality segments of, all public roads, including non-State-owned public roads and roads on tribal land;

(E) considers the results of State, regional, or local transportation and highway safety planning processes;


74

(F) describes a program of strategies to reduce or eliminate safety hazards;

(G) is approved by the Governor of the State or a responsible State agency;

(H) is consistent with section 135(g); and (I) is updated and submitted to the Secretary for approval as required

under subsection (d)(2). (13) Systemic safety improvement. - The term "systemic safety improvement"

means an improvement that is widely implemented based on high-risk roadway features that are correlated with particular crash types, rather than crash frequency. (b) Program. -

(1) In general. - The Secretary shall carry out a highway safety improvement program.

(2) Purpose. - The purpose of the highway safety improvement program shall be to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including non-State-owned public roads and roads on tribal land. (c) Eligibility. -

(1) In general. - To obligate funds apportioned under section 104(b)(3) to carry out this section, a State shall have in effect a State highway safety improvement program under which the State -

(A) develops, implements, and updates a State strategic highway safety plan that identifies and analyzes highway safety problems and opportunities as provided in subsections (a)(12) and (d);

(B) produces a program of projects or strategies to reduce identified safety problems; and

(C) evaluates the strategic highway safety plan on a regularly recurring basis in accordance with subsection (d)(1) to ensure the accuracy of the data and priority of proposed strategies. (2) Identification and analysis of highway safety problems and opportunities. - As

part of the State highway safety improvement program, a State shall - (A) have in place a safety data system with the ability to perform safety

problem identification and countermeasure analysis - (i) to improve the timeliness, accuracy, completeness,

uniformity, integration, and accessibility of the safety data on all public roads, including non-State-owned public roads and roads on tribal land in the State;

(ii) to evaluate the effectiveness of data improvement efforts; (iii) to link State data systems, including traffic records, with

other data systems within the State; (iv) to improve the compatibility and interoperability of safety

data with other State transportation-related data systems and the


75

compatibility and interoperability of State safety data systems with data systems of other States and national data systems;

(v) to enhance the ability of the Secretary to observe and analyze national trends in crash occurrences, rates, outcomes, and circumstances; and

(vi) to improve the collection of data on nonmotorized crashes; (B) based on the analysis required by subparagraph (A) -

(i) identify hazardous locations, sections, and elements (including roadside obstacles, railway-highway crossing needs, and unmarked or poorly marked roads) that constitute a danger to motorists (including motorcyclists), bicyclists, pedestrians, and other highway users;

(ii) using such criteria as the State determines to be appropriate, establish the relative severity of those locations, in terms of crashes (including crash rates), fatalities, serious injuries, traffic volume levels, and other relevant data;

(iii) identify the number of fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads by location in the State;

(iv) identify highway safety improvement projects on the basis of crash experience, crash potential, crash rate, or other data-supported means; and

(v) consider which projects maximize opportunities to advance safety; (C) adopt strategic and performance-based goals that -

(i) address traffic safety, including behavioral and infrastructure problems and opportunities on all public roads;

(ii) focus resources on areas of greatest need; and (iii) are coordinated with other State highway safety programs;

(D) advance the capabilities of the State for safety data collection, analysis, and integration in a manner that -

(i) complements the State highway safety program under chapter 4 and the commercial vehicle safety plan under section 31102 of title 49;

(ii) includes all public roads, including public non-State- owned roads and roads on tribal land;

(iii) identifies hazardous locations, sections, and elements on all public roads that constitute a danger to motorists (including motorcyclists), bicyclists, pedestrians, persons with disabilities, and other highway users;

(iv) includes a means of identifying the relative severity of hazardous locations described in clause (iii) in terms of crashes (including crash rate), serious injuries, fatalities, and traffic volume levels; and


76

(v) improves the ability of the State to identify the number of fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads in the State with a breakdown by functional classification and ownership in the State; (E)

(i) determine priorities for the correction of hazardous road locations, sections, and elements (including railway- highway crossing improvements), as identified through safety data analysis;

(ii) identify opportunities for preventing the development of such hazardous conditions; and

(iii) establish and implement a schedule of highway safety improvement projects for hazard correction and hazard prevention; and (F)

(i) establish an evaluation process to analyze and assess results achieved by highway safety improvement projects carried out in accordance with procedures and criteria established by this section; and

(ii) use the information obtained under clause (i) in setting priorities for highway safety improvement projects.

(d) Updates to Strategic Highway Safety Plans. - (1) Establishment of requirements. -

(A) In general. - Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the MAP-21, the Secretary shall establish requirements for regularly recurring State updates of strategic highway safety plans.

(B) Contents of updated strategic highway safety plans. - In establishing requirements under this subsection, the Secretary shall ensure that States take into consideration, with respect to updated strategic highway safety plans -

(i) the findings of road safety audits; (ii) the locations of fatalities and serious injuries; (iii) the locations that do not have an empirical history of

fatalities and serious injuries, but possess risk factors for potential crashes; (iv) rural roads, including all public roads, commensurate with

fatality data; (v) motor vehicle crashes that include fatalities or serious

injuries to pedestrians and bicyclists; (vi) the cost-effectiveness of improvements; (vii) improvements to rail-highway grade crossings; and (viii) safety on all public roads, including non-State- owned

public roads and roads on tribal land. (2) Approval of updated strategic highway safety plans. -

(A) In general. - Each State shall -


77

(i) update the strategic highway safety plans of the State in accordance with the requirements established by the Secretary under this subsection; and

(ii) submit the updated plans to the Secretary, along with a detailed description of the process used to update the plan. (B) Requirements for approval. - The Secretary shall not approve the

process for an updated strategic highway safety plan unless - (i) the updated strategic highway safety plan is consistent with

the requirements of this subsection and subsection (a)(12); and (ii) the process used is consistent with the requirements of this

subsection. (3) Penalty for failure to have an approved updated strategic highway safety plan.

- If a State does not have an updated strategic highway safety plan with a process approved by the Secretary by August 1 of the fiscal year beginning after the date of establishment of the requirements under paragraph (1), the State shall not be eligible to receive any additional limitation pursuant to the redistribution of the limitation on obligations for Federal-aid highway and highway safety construction programs that occurs after August 1 for each succeeding fiscal year until the fiscal year during which the plan is approved. (e) Eligible Projects. -

(1) In general. - Funds apportioned to the State under section 104(b)(3) may be obligated to carry out -

(A) any highway safety improvement project on any public road or publicly owned bicycle or pedestrian pathway or trail;

(B) as provided in subsection (g); or (C) any project to maintain minimum levels of retroreflectivity with

respect to a public road, without regard to whether the project is included in an applicable State strategic highway safety plan. (2) Use of other funding for safety. -

(A) Effect of section. - Nothing in this section prohibits the use of funds made available under other provisions of this title for highway safety improvement projects.

(B) Use of other funds. - States are encouraged to address the full scope of the safety needs and opportunities of the States by using funds made available under other provisions of this title (except a provision that specifically prohibits that use).

(f) Data Improvement. - (1) Definition of data improvement activities. - In this subsection, the following

definitions apply: (A) In general. - The term "data improvement activities" means a

project or activity to further the capacity of a State to make more informed and effective safety infrastructure investment decisions.


78

(B) Inclusions. - The term "data improvement activities" includes a project or activity -

(i) to create, update, or enhance a highway basemap of all public roads in a State;

(ii) to collect safety data, including data identified as part of the model inventory for roadway elements, for creation of or use on a highway basemap of all public roads in a State;

(iii) to store and maintain safety data in an electronic manner; (iv) to develop analytical processes for safety data elements; (v) to acquire and implement roadway safety analysis tools;

and (vi) to support the collection, maintenance, and sharing of

safety data on all public roads and related systems associated with the analytical usage of that data.

(2) Model inventory of roadway elements. - The Secretary shall - (A) establish a subset of the model inventory of roadway elements that

are useful for the inventory of roadway safety; and (B) ensure that States adopt and use the subset to improve data

collection. (g) Special Rules. -

(1) High-risk rural road safety. - If the fatality rate on rural roads in a State increases over the most recent 2-year period for which data are available, that State shall be required to obligate in the next fiscal year for projects on high risk rural roads an amount equal to at least 200 percent of the amount of funds the State received for fiscal year 2009 for high risk rural roads under subsection (f) of this section, as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of the MAP-21.

(2) Older drivers. - If traffic fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and pedestrians over the age of 65 in a State increases during the most recent 2-year period for which data are available, that State shall be required to include, in the subsequent Strategic Highway Safety Plan of the State, strategies to address the increases in those rates, taking into account the recommendations included in the publication of the Federal Highway Administration entitled 'Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and Pedestrians' (FHWA-RD-01-103), and dated May 2001, or as subsequently revised and updated. (h) Reports. -

(1) In general. - A State shall submit to the Secretary a report that - (A) describes progress being made to implement highway safety

improvement projects under this section; (B) assesses the effectiveness of those improvements; and (C) describes the extent to which the improvements funded under this

section have contributed to reducing -


79

(i) the number and rate of fatalities on all public roads with, to the maximum extent practicable, a breakdown by functional classification and ownership in the State;

(ii) the number and rate of serious injuries on all public roads with, to the maximum extent practicable, a breakdown by functional classification and ownership in the State; and

(iii) the occurrences of fatalities and serious injuries at railway-highway crossings.

(2) Contents; schedule. - The Secretary shall establish the content and schedule for the submission of the report under paragraph (1).

(3) Transparency. - The Secretary shall make strategic highway safety plans submitted under subsection (d) and reports submitted under this subsection available to the public through -

(A) the website of the Department; and (B) such other means as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.

(4) Discovery and admission into evidence of certain reports, surveys, and information. - Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for any purpose relating to this section, shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data. (i) State Performance Targets. - If the Secretary determines that a State has not met or

made significant progress toward meeting the performance targets of the State established under section 150(d) by the date that is 2 years after the date of the establishment of the performance targets, the State shall -

(1) use obligation authority equal to the apportionment of the State for the prior year under section 104(b)(3) only for highway safety improvement projects under this section until the Secretary determines that the State has met or made significant progress toward meeting the performance targets of the State; and

(2) submit annually to the Secretary, until the Secretary determines that the State has met or made significant progress toward meeting the performance targets of the State, an implementation plan that -

(A) identifies roadway features that constitute a hazard to road users; (B) identifies highway safety improvement projects on the basis of

crash experience, crash potential, or other data- supported means; (C) describes how highway safety improvement program funds will be

allocated, including projects, activities, and strategies to be implemented; (D) describes how the proposed projects, activities, and strategies

funded under the State highway safety improvement program will allow the State to make progress toward achieving the safety performance targets of the State; and


80

(E) describes the actions the State will undertake to meet the performance targets of the State.

(j) Federal Share of Highway Safety Improvement Projects. - Except as provided in sections 120 and 130, the Federal share of the cost of a highway safety improvement project carried out with funds apportioned to a State under section 104(b)(3) shall be 90 percent.

Appendix B: Comparison of SAFETEA-LU and MAP-21 Legislation

81

Appendix B - Comparison of SAFETEA-LU and MAP-21 Legislation

SAFETEA-LU MAP-21

HRRR Definition “(a) [A road] where the accident rate for fatalities and incapacitating injuries exceeds the statewide average for those functional classes of roadway, or (b) that will likely have increases in traffic volume that are likely to create an accident rate for fatalities and incapacitating injuries that exceeds the statewide average for those functional classes of roadway.

Any roadway functionally classified as a rural major or minor collector or a rural local road with significant safety risks, as defined by a State in accordance with an updated State Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

HRRR Special Rule If the fatality rates on rural roads in a State increases over the most recent 2-year period for which data are available, that State shall be required to obligate in the next fiscal year for projects on high risk rural roads an amount equal to at least 200 percent of the amount of funds the State received for fiscal year 2009 for high risk rural roads under subsection (f) of this section, as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of the MAP-21.

HRRR Set-Aside Funding from State Agencies

Available Not Available

Appendix C: HRRR 2009 Set-Aside Amounts and Obligation Requirements under MAP-21 Special Rule

82

Appendix C - HRRR 2009 Set-Aside Amounts and Obligation Requirements under MAP-21 Special Rule

State 2009 HRRR Set-Aside Funds Funds Required to be Obligated in a Fiscal Year for HRRR if the Map-21 Special Rule Applies

Alabama $2,062,489 $4,124,978 Alaska $450,000 $900,000 Arizona $2,046,858 $4,093,716 Arkansas $1,374,327 $2,748,654 California $8,781,564 $17,563,128 Colorado $1,413,042 $2,826,084 Connecticut $751,445 $1,502,890 Delaware $450,000 $900,000 District of Columbia

$450,000 $900,000

Florida $4,722,502 $9,445,004 Georgia $3,149,726 $6,299,452 Hawaii $450,000 $900,000 Idaho $647,399 $1,294,798 Illinois $3,024,273 $6,048,546 Indiana $1,756,645 $3,513,290 Iowa $1,335,895 $2,671,790 Kansas $1,575,055 $3,150,110 Kentucky $1,439,993 $2,879,986 Louisiana $1,542,587 $3,085,174 Maine $450,000 $900,000 Maryland $1,331,794 $2,663,588 Massachusetts $1,136,838 $2,273,676 Michigan $2,926,006 $5,852,012


83


Minnesota $1,810,055 $3,620,110 Mississippi $1,639,574 $3,279,148 Missouri $2,328,568 $4,657,136 Montana $694,880 $1,389,760 Nebraska $938,461 $1,876,922 Nevada $743,907 $1,487,814 New Hampshire $450,000 $900,000 New Jersey $1,666,605 $3,333,210 New Mexico $943,712 $1,887,424 New York $3,095,686 $6,191,372 North Carolina $2,363,489 $4,726,978 North Dakota $628,833 $1,257,666 Ohio $2,757,751 $5,515,502 Oklahoma $1,899,409 $3,798,818 Oregon $1,220,060 $2,440,120 Pennsylvania $2,883,447 $5,766,894 Rhode Island $450,000 $900,000 South Carolina $2,008,769 $4,017,538 South Dakota $758,550 $1,517,100 Tennessee $2,118,260 $4,236,520 Texas $7,286,076 $14,572,152 Utah $665,659 $1,331,318 Vermont $450,000 $900,000 Virginia $2,229,887 $4,459,774 Washington $1,572,286 $3,144,572 West Virginia $805,658 $1,611,316 Wisconsin $1,868,071 $3,736,142


84


Wyoming $453,909 $907,818 Sources: U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA, “Revised Distribution of Highway Safety Improvement Program Funds Apportioned for Fiscal Year 2009 Including the 10 percent Limiting Amount To Carry Out Safety Projects Under Any Section as Provided in a State's Strategic Highway Safety Plan, and those Amounts Set-Aside for Construction and Operational Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads.” Available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/notices/n4510742/n4510742t17.htm. See also: FHWA, Highway Safety Improvement Program, MAP-21 High Risk Rural Roads Guidance. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidehrrr.cfm.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/notices/n4510742/n4510742t17.htm

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidehrrr.cfm

Appendix D: Survey Questions, Instructions, and Associated Definitions

85

Appendix D - Survey Questions, Instructions, and Associated Definitions This appendix details the survey questions that were launched for State and local agency response. The survey instructions and definitions are included. This appendix captures the survey experience as seen by the survey respondent.

QUESTIONNAIRE Note to Reviewers: The format of this questionnaire is configured so that ultimately the questions can be input into an on-line tool. As a result, some of the questions may not be presented to individuals for whom they are not applicable.

This collection of information is voluntary and will be used in combination with other research in a Report to Congress and included in a best practices guide to support Federal, State, and local efforts in reducing fatalities and serious injuries at high risk rural road locations. Public reporting burden is estimated to average 8 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Please note that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 201211-2125-001. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20590. INTRODUCTION The MAP-21 was signed into law on July 6, 2012, making it the first long-term Federal highway authorization enacted since 2005. The MAP-21 creates a streamlined and performance-based surface transportation program and builds on many of the highway, transit, bike, and pedestrian programs and policies established in 1991. The MAP-21 Section 1112(b) requires the US Department of Transportation to conduct a questionnaire of State and local agencies to identify best practices for implementing cost-effective roadway safety infrastructure improvements on high risk rural roads (HRRR). The results of this questionnaire will be combined with other research to prepare a Report to Congress by October 1, 2013. The questionnaire results and other research also will be included in a best practices manual to support Federal, State, and local efforts in reducing fatalities and serious injuries at high risk rural road locations. Thank you in advance for participating in this important effort. DEFINITIONS


86

This questionnaire is designed to identify roadway safety infrastructure improvements for State and local high risk rural roads and their known levels of effectiveness, associated costs, and typical life cycles. Previously, high risk rural roads have been defined by the 2005 legislation SAFETEA-LU, Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, as: “(a) one where the accident rate for fatalities and incapacitating injuries exceeds the statewide average for those functional classes of roadway, or (b) that will likely have increases in traffic volume that are likely to create an accident rate for fatalities and incapacitating injuries that exceeds the statewide average for those functional classes of roadway.” The MAP-21 defines a high risk rural road as: “any roadway functionally classified as a rural major or minor collector or a rural local road with significant safety risks, as defined by a State in accordance with an updated State strategic highway safety plan.” For the purposes of this questionnaire, please use the following definition: High risk rural roads (as defined by SAFETEA-LU) where safety treatments have been implemented, regardless of the funding sources for those treatments.


87

INSTRUCTIONS To the maximum extent possible, please answer the following questions to the best of your abilities and complete the questionnaire by February 8, 2013, while conforming to the OMB burden hours.

• Questionnaire Length – There are approximately 30 items in this questionnaire. Your progression through the questionnaire will be shown graphically by a bar at the bottom of the screen indicating percent complete.

• Exiting and Returning to the Questionnaire – If you need to exit, your responses will be saved. When you relaunch the

questionnaire, you will be returned to where you stopped as long as you use the same computer and browser and have cookies enabled. If you have questions about enabling cookies on your computer, please contact your organization’s IT support.

• Moving within the Questionnaire – Where it is allowable, you will be able to move back and forth within the questionnaire.

Please use the “back” and “next” buttons within the questionnaire itself. Do not use the browser “back” and “forward” buttons as using them may cause you to lose your data.

• Forwarding the Questionnaire – If you determine that another person within your agency would be better suited to complete

the questionnaire, please forward that individual a link to the questionnaire. Please provide only one response per agency.

If you have any inquiries regarding this questionnaire, please contact Jim Dahlem, (202) 366-9265, [email protected].

mailto:[email protected]


88

QUESTIONS 1. What type of agency do you represent (check one)?

State transportation agency

Local transportation agency

Other Explain: ____________________________________

If the respondent indicated they are affiliated with a local agency, he or she will be presented with question 1.a. and 1.b. a. Does your agency have a dedicated safety improvement program?

Yes

No

[Note to reviewers: The purpose of this question is to determine if the agency has a formal safety program (and thus is likely to have more exposure to a wide array of treatments) or if funding for safety improvements is minimal, as this could influence the cost-effectiveness assessments for such agencies.]

b. Does your agency have a staff member or members primarily responsible for the oversight of safety improvements and/or maintenance of the improvements?

Yes

No

2. Please list the name and location (e.g., city, state) of the agency that you represent.

Agency Name: _____________________________________ Location: ____________________________________

3. Please identify the individual intersection-specific infrastructure safety improvement treatments used by your agency at high risk rural road locations (check all that apply).

a. Construct left-turn lanes where none currently exist

b. Modify existing left-turn lanes to be offset left-turn lanes

c. Construct offset left-turn lanes where left-turn lanes currently do not exist


89

d. Construct right-turn lanes

e. Construct bypass lanes

f. Construct acceleration lanes

g. Install advanced warning signage where it currently does not exist

h. Improve existing advanced warning signage

i. Provide flashing beacons at intersection approaches

j. Add dynamic advanced warning at intersection approaches

k. Convert minor-road stop control only to all-way stop control

l. Convert stop control to signalized control

m. Improve traffic signal visibility (larger diameter lens or install back plate)

n. Install priority control systems for emergency vehicles

o. Install railroad crossing hardware and warning systems where they currently do not exist

p. Upgrade existing railroad crossing hardware and warning systems

q. Remove an existing railroad grade crossing

r. Others List: _______________________________________________

4. Please identify the individual signing and pavement marking safety treatments used by your agency at high risk rural road locations (check all that apply).

a. Install advisory speed signs at horizontal curve locations

b. Install chevron signs at horizontal curve locations

c. Install arrow boards at horizontal curve locations

d. Install post-mounted delineators at horizontal curve locations

e. Upgrade warning signs (increase size or improve sheeting conspicuity)


90

f. Install standard edge line markings where previously not present

g. Convert standard edge line markings to wide (> 4”) edge line markings

h. Install center line markings where previously not present

i. Convert center line markings to wide (> 4”) center line markings

j. Install raised pavement markers along the center line exclusively at horizontal curve locations

k. Install raised pavement markers along the length of the center line for an entire segment or corridor

l. Install edge line longitudinal rumble stripes (Note: rumble strips will be included in a later question) (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/pavement/rumble_strips/)

m. Install center line longitudinal rumble stripes

n. Others List: _______________________________________________

5. Please identify the individual pavement and shoulder resurfacing and widening infrastructure safety improvement treatments used by your agency at high risk rural road locations (check all that apply).

a. Resurface existing road to improve skid resistance

b. Widen existing travel lanes by two feet or less per lane

c. Adjust super elevation through the limits of a horizontal curve

d. Add periodic passing lanes

e. Install or maintain a graded shoulder

f. Pave an existing shoulder

g. Widen an existing paved shoulder

h. Install a Safety EdgeTM (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/pavement/safedge/brochure/)

i. Install continuous longitudinal rumble strips

j. Install targeted longitudinal rumble strips at key locations (such as on the outside of horizontal curves only) (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/pavement/rumble_strips/)

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/pavement/rumble_strips/

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/pavement/safedge/brochure/

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/pavement/rumble_strips/


91

k. Install transverse rumble strips prior to horizontal curves

l. Others List: _______________________________________________

6. Please identify the individual roadside infrastructure safety improvement treatments used by your agency at high risk rural road locations (check all that apply).

a. Flatten road sideslope

b. Remove roadside hazards such as isolated trees

c. Systematically increase the clear zone distance to rigid roadside features

d. Relocate select hazardous utility poles

e. Improve sight distance by maintaining roadside vegetation

f. Convert culvert headwalls to traversable end treatments

g. Shield roadside hazards by constructing guardrail

h. Modify end treatments of existing guardrail

i. Install concrete median barrier

j. Install median guardrail

k. Install median cable barrier

l. Widen existing median

m. Install impact attenuation devices at select roadside hazard locations (such as exposed bridge columns)

n. Others List: _______________________________________________

7. Please identify the individual capital improvement safety treatments used by your agency at high risk rural road locations (check all that apply).

a. Convert a two-lane two-way road into a four-lane two-way road

b. Convert a four-lane two-way road into a three-lane road with one lane in each direction of travel plus a continuous TWLTL (i.e., Road Diet)


92

c. Convert a four-lane two-way road into a five-lane road with two lanes in each direction of travel plus a continuous TWLTL

d. Convert a traditional intersection into a roundabout

e. Convert a traditional intersection into a J-turn intersection (constraining left-turn maneuvers from minor roads)

f. Convert an intersection into a grade-separated interchange

g. Modify horizontal geometry to enhance safety (increase radii, reconstruct skewed intersection, etc) Identify: ____________________________

h. Modify vertical geometry to improve vertical sight distance (flatten vertical curve, etc.) Identify: ________________________________________

i. Others List: _______________________________________________

8. Please identify unique infrastructure safety treatments used by your agency at high risk rural road locations (check all that apply).

a. Construct continuous pedestrian facilities

b. Install pedestrian signal heads to existing signalized intersections

c. Construct adjacent shared-use paths

d. Construct exclusive bicycle lanes

e. Deploy traffic calming techniques List: __________________________

f. Construct wildlife fencing

g. Install or modify culverts to accommodate wildlife crossing

h. Others List: _______________________________________________

9. a. For the safety infrastructure improvements you previously selected, identify up to five of the most effective treatments your agency has deployed in the last seven years (check a maximum of five).

[Questionnaire will display only the items previously selected by the respondent in questions 3-8 (including the "Others" category). If the respondent did not select any of the candidate treatments, then this question will not display.]


93

b. For each treatment previously identified, please provide the following:

Treatment Approximate Quantity

Unit of Measurement Initial investment Projected

life Required maintenance

Maintenance cost per period

Display first treatment identified in Question 9.a.

Allow respondent to type in a numeric answer here

Linear feet

Linear miles

Square feet

Unit price

Lump sum

Do not know

Less than $10,000

$10,000 to $50,000

$50,000 to $75,000

$75,000 to $100,000

$100,000 to $200,000

$200,000 to $300,000

$300,000 to $400,000

$400,000 to $500,000

$500,000 to $750,000

$750,000 to $1,000,000

> $1,000,000

Do not know

1 year

2 years

5 years

10 years

20 years

> 20 years

Do not know

None

Every 1 year

Every 2 years

Every 5 years

Every 10 years

Every 20 years

Do not know

Integrated into maintenance program so unknown

$1,000 to $5,000

$5,000 to $10,000

$10,000 to $25,000

$25,000 to $50,000

$50,000 to $75,000

$75,000 to $100,000

> $100,000

Do not know

c. For each treatment, please provide the following:


94

Treatment

Rank Based on Observed Safety Performance (only allow one selection of 1, one of 2, etc.)

Highest Level of Assessment Safety Benefit

Display first treatment identified in Question 9.a.

1 (most effective)

2 (2nd most effective)

3 (3rd most effective)

4 (4th most effective)

5 (5th most effective)

Treatment implemented but effectiveness test has not been performed

Treatment implemented and evaluated for effectiveness

Do not know

>30 percent reduction in severe and fatal crashes

Between 21 and 30 percent reduction in severe and fatal crashes

Between 11 and 20 percent reduction in severe and fatal crashes

10 percent or less reduction in severe and fatal crashes

No change in severe and fatal crashes

Do Not Know

Not Applicable

10. What is the highest project cost your agency would consider incurring to treat a known safety issue?

a. Cost in dollars:_____________

b. Do Not Know


95

If the respondent indicated a cost in dollars, he or she will be presented with question 10.a. a. What considerations go into establishing the limit for project costs to treat a known safety issue?

11. How does your agency assess the effectiveness of a safety treatment (check all that apply)?

Crash rate

Crash frequency (all crashes)

Crash frequency (severe crashes)

Cost-benefit ratio (or benefit-cost ratio)

Cost-effectiveness index (present value of project costs divided by the estimated average annual crash reduction)

Severity index Explain: ____________________________________

Other Explain: ___________________________________________

Do not know

12. What, if any, performance measures does your agency use to evaluate the safety effectiveness of candidate treatments (check all that apply)?

Crash data

Conflict studies

Surrogate measures Explain:___________________________________

Others Explain: ______________________________________________

Do not know

Not applicable

If the respondent indicated that their agency uses crash data for safety evaluation, he or she will be presented with question 11.a. a. What period of years does your agency use when evaluating crash data?

1 year

3 years


96

5 years

Other Explain: ____________________________________________

13. Which methods does your agency use to assist in selecting appropriate safety treatments?

Use the Highway Safety Manual and/or FHWA Clearinghouse crash modification factors (CMF)

Developed locally-derived CMFs or crash reduction factors (CRF)

Other Explain: ________________________________________

Do not know

Not applicable

14. In some cases, candidate infrastructure treatments may not be selected due to perceived constraints in acquiring or deploying the treatments. Which challenges apply in your agency? (check all that apply):

a. My agency does not have the expertise to deploy certain safety improvements

b. My agency works in conjunction with other transportation agencies to hire outside expertise to help guide safety improvement decisions

c. My agency does not have the funds to routinely deploy safety improvements

d. My agency has limited funding and does not utilize Federal funding due to Federal process requirements

e. Other Explain: _______________________________________________

f. Do not know

g. Not applicable

15. What could be done to help your agency deploy cost-effective improvements on HRRRs?

a. Explain: _______________________________________________

16. Is your agency undertaking any experimental research on new cost effective improvements on HRRRs?

a. Yes


97

No

Do Not Know

If the respondent indicated yes, he or she will be presented with question 16.a. a. Provide more information on your agency's experimental research on new cost-effective improvements on high risk rural

roads.: _______________________________________________

17. Is there any additional information on effective best practices your agency uses or is aware of that is not captured in the previous questions?

a. Yes

No

If the respondent indicated yes, he or she will be presented with question 16.a. a. Provide additional details on best practices not captured in the previous questions.

18. As part of this FHWA evaluation, a cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted for a wide variety of infrastructure safety improvements. If your agency has information that will be helpful with this assessment, FHWA representatives may want to contact you or someone from your agency to acquire additional data. Candidate information would include crash data before and after installation of the treatment, initial treatment cost, maintenance cost and frequency, and life cycle of the treatment. If willing to assist with this effort, please provide contact information below.

Name: _____________________________________ Agency: ____________________________________ Telephone Number: ____________________________ Email Address: ________________________________

19. Looking ahead to the completion of the high risk rural roads best practices manual, there are many ways to spread information to make agencies aware of and to encourage agencies to implement best practices. Please rank the techniques below from most useful to least useful when you are learning about and considering new practices.

Workshops, Conferences, and Seminars

Peer Exchanges

Webinars


98

Case Studies

Fact Sheets

Newsletters and Magazine Articles

Social Media/Interactive Media

Other _______________

-----Final Screen -----

Thank you for assisting FHWA with this important questionnaire. Your input is critical to the success of this effort. Following completion of the questionnaire, you are welcome to submit additional ideas on the MAP-21 website at

http://map21performance.ideascale.com or to the Roadway Safety Noteworthy Practices Database at

http://rspcb.safety.fhwa.dot.gov/noteworthy/

http://map21performance.ideascale.com/

http://rspcb.safety.fhwa.dot.gov/noteworthy/

Appendix E: State and Local Agency Contacts

99

Appendix E - State and Local Agency Contacts This appendix details the 50 State agencies and the 100 local agencies that were asked to participate in the HRRR survey. State DOT Survey Contacts

NAME ASSOCIATION CONTACT First Last Agency Email

Tim Barnett Alabama DOT [email protected]

Jeff Jeffers Alaska DOT [email protected]

Mark Poppe Arizona DOT [email protected]

Andy Brewer Arkansas Highways and Transportation Department

[email protected]

Jesse Bhullar Caltrans [email protected]

Charles Meyer Colorado DOT [email protected]

Joe Ouellette Connecticut Department of Transportation

[email protected]

Thomas Meyer Delaware DOT [email protected] Joe Santos Florida DOT [email protected]

Norm Cressman GDOT [email protected]

Sean Hiraoka Hawaii DOT [email protected]

Brent Jennings Idaho DOT [email protected]

Priscilla Tobias Illinois DOT [email protected]

Mike Holowaty Indiana DOT [email protected]

Jeremey Vortherms

Iowa DOT [email protected]

Steven Buckley Kansas DOT [email protected]

Tracy Lovell Kentucky Transportation Cabinet

[email protected]

Dan Magri Louisiana DOTD [email protected]

Duane Brunell Maine DOT [email protected] Ron Lipps Maryland SHA [email protected]

Bonnie Polin Maryland SHA [email protected]

Tracie Leix Michigan DOT [email protected]

Brad Estochen Minnesota DOT [email protected]

Jim Willis Mississippi DOT [email protected]

Mike Curtit Missouri DOT [email protected] Kraig McLeod Montana DOT [email protected]

Daniel Waddle Nebraska DOT [email protected]

Chuck Reider Nevada DOT [email protected]

Craig Green New Hampshire DOT [email protected]


























100

William Day New Jersey DOT [email protected]

Elias Archuleta New Mexico DOT [email protected] Tony Signorelli New York DOT [email protected]

Brian Mayhew North Carolina DOT [email protected]

Karin Mongeon North Dakota DOT [email protected]

Dave Griffith Ohio DOT [email protected]

David Glabas Oklahoma DOT [email protected]

Tim Burks Oregon DOT [email protected]

Jeffery Roecker PennDOT [email protected] Christopher

Speese PennDOT [email protected]

* Gary Modi PennDOT [email protected]

Robert Rocchio Rhode Island DOT [email protected]

Brett Harrelson South Carolina DOT [email protected] Sonia Downs South Dakota DOT [email protected] Brian Hurst Tennessee DOT [email protected]

Margaret Moore Texas DOT [email protected]

Robert Hull Utah DOT [email protected]

Bruce Nyquist Vermont DOT [email protected] Stephen Read Virginia DOT Stephen. [email protected] John Milton Washington State DOT [email protected]

Marsha Mays West Virginia DOT [email protected]

Rebecca Yao Wisconsin DOT rebecca.yao@dot. state.wi.us Matthew Carlson Wyoming DOT [email protected]

* Gary Modi indicated he would not be available to respond to the survey and instead gave contact information for two other PennDOT staff. Local/Tribal Agency Survey Contacts

NAME ASSOCIATION Contact First Last Agency Email

Dennis McCall Butler County AL [email protected]

Rickey Mitchell Mobile County AL [email protected]

Benjie Sanders Crenshaw County AL [email protected]

Richie Beyer Elmore County AL [email protected]

Tim Graves Etowah County AL [email protected]

Greg Bodley Morgan County AL [email protected]

Dan Dahlke St. Clair County AL [email protected]

Mike Crump Butte County CA [email protected]

Patrick DeChellis Los Angeles County

CA [email protected]

Steven Castelberry Nevada County CA [email protected]



























101

Bob Perrault Plumas County CA [email protected]

Richard Tippett Trinity County Dept of Transportation

CA [email protected]

George Sugars Fremont County CO [email protected]

Eugene Calvert Collier County FL [email protected]

Bart Ciambella Marion County FL [email protected]

Doug Gable Polk County FL [email protected]

Keary Lord Douglas County GA [email protected] Catherine Nicholas Black Hawk

County IA [email protected]

Brian Keierleber Buchanan County IA [email protected] Todd Kinney Clinton County IA [email protected] Jim George Dallas County IA [email protected] Steve Gannon Linn County IA [email protected] Jon Burgstrom Scott County IA [email protected] Darren Moon Story County IA [email protected] Lyle Brehm Tama/Powesghiek

County IA [email protected]

Lee Bjerke Winneshiek County

IA [email protected]

Mark Nahra Woodbury County IA [email protected] Laila Maqbool Local Highway

Technical Assistance Council

ID [email protected]

Rick Johnson Coles County IL [email protected]

Grant Guthman Jackson County IL [email protected]

Bruce Bird Macon County IL [email protected]

Mike Pedigo Mason County IL [email protected]

Aaron Metzger Monroe County IL [email protected]

John Massa Rock Island County

IL [email protected]

Jim Olson Jefferson County IN [email protected] Bill Williams Monroe County IN [email protected] William Hubiak Henderson

County KY [email protected]

David Barrow City of Central LA [email protected] Maurice Jordan Tangipahoa Parish LA [email protected] Wayne Schoonover Ionia County Road

Commission MI [email protected]

Wayne Harrall Kent County Road Commission

MI [email protected]







mailto:%[email protected]?subject=Inquiry%20from%20IACE%20Website









102

Ryan Doyle Lapeer County Road Commission


Lawrence Hummel Van Buren County Road Commission


Karl Hanson Wexford County Road Commission


Brad Wentz Becker County MN [email protected]

Rick West Ottertail County MN [email protected]

Eric Landwehr Cole County MO [email protected]

Geoffrey Clemens Hancock County MS [email protected]

Russ Huotari Richland County MT [email protected]

Ron Sklenar Buffalo County NE [email protected]

Chris Jacobson Custer County NE [email protected]

Casey Sherlock Hall County NE [email protected]

Tim Ryan Keith County NE [email protected]

Don Thomas Lancaster County NE [email protected]

Tim Sweeney Town of Bow NH [email protected]

Todd Gadd Wyoming County NY [email protected]

Jeffery Linkous Clinton County OH [email protected] Dean Otworth Highland County OH [email protected]

Mark Zimmerman Seneca County OH [email protected]

Robert Geuy Shelby County OH [email protected]

Neil Tunison Warren County OH [email protected]

Monty Proctor Wagoner County OK [email protected]

Ken Helgerson Baker County OR [email protected]

Brian Barnett City of Springfield OR [email protected] Dave Hill Columbia County OR [email protected]

Penny Keller Crook County OR [email protected]

Dan Crumley Curry County OR [email protected]

Joe Marek Clackamas County Dept. of Transp. and Devel.

OR [email protected]

Chris Doty Deschutes County OR [email protected]

Robb Paul Douglas County OR [email protected]

Eric Drushella Harney County OR [email protected]

Dean Guess Hood River County


John Vial Jackson County OR [email protected]

Mike Kuntz Jackson County OR [email protected]

Ed Chastain Lane County OR [email protected]

Jim Buisman Lincoln County OR [email protected]

Cynthia Schmitt Marion County OR [email protected]




































103

Burke O'Brien Morrow County OR [email protected]

Michael Cardwell Quinalt Indian Nation


Leane Welch Tillamook County OR [email protected]

Marty Matherly Wasco County OR [email protected]

Rod Thompson Tooele County UT [email protected] Richard Nielson Utah County UT [email protected] Ejaz Khan Clark County WA [email protected]

Carla Marconi Colville Tribal Task Force

WA [email protected]

Connie Bowers Island County WA [email protected]

Henry Perrin King County WA [email protected]

Bill Edwards Kitsap County WA [email protected]

Gordon Kelsey Klickitat County WA [email protected] Kirk Vinish Lummi Tribe WA [email protected]

Rory Grindley Pierce County WA [email protected] Forrest Jones Skagit County WA [email protected]

Barry Greene Spokane County WA [email protected]

Scott Davis Thurston County WA [email protected] Mark Servi Barron County,

WI / NACE WI [email protected]

Bruce Stelzer Chippewa County WI [email protected]

Gerald Mandli Dane County WI [email protected]

Brian Field Dodge County WI [email protected]

James Griesebach Marathon County WI [email protected]

Don Beard Laramie County WY [email protected]


















Appendix F: Noteworthy Practices Detailed Cost Information

104

Appendix F – Noteworthy Practices Detailed Cost Information

Cost-Effectiveness Values for Intersection Treatments. For intersection-related treatments, the cost-effective analysis assessment includes low volume intersections (assumed to have values of 1000 VPD for both the major and minor leg) and moderate volume intersections (assumed to have values of 8000 VPD for the major leg and 1000 VPD for the minor leg). In addition, where applicable, the analysis considered three types of intersection configurations:

• 4SG -- Four-leg signalized intersection;

• 4ST -- Four-leg intersections where the minor road has a stop condition and the major road is not required to stop; and

• 3ST -- Three-leg intersections where the minor leg has a stop condition and the major road is not required to stop

For the purposes of maintaining comparable evaluations, all three intersection configurations are assumed to be located on two-lane, two-way rural highways.

The following tables demonstrate the results of the cost-effectiveness assessment for intersection-related treatments.


105

Signalized Intersection Treatments Table 26: 4SG Low Volume Intersections (AADTmajor=1000 VPD, AADTminor=1000 VPD)

Treatment (4SG) – Low Volume Conditions

Benefit-Cost

Ratio

Associated Costs Cost-Effectiveness Initial

Investment ($)

Cost of Maintenance

($)

Frequency of Maintenance

(years)

Dollars Spent (Net Present

Value) for Fatal + Injury Crashes

Prevented $2012 per crash*

Equivalent Annual Dollars

Spent for Fatal + Injury Crashes

Prevented

Net Annual Benefit

Install Left-Turn Lane 4.1 400,000 20,000 10 $104,555 $7,693 $92,928 Install Right-Turn Lane 4.9 70,000 20,000 10 $87,101 $6,409 $23,759 Provide Flashing Beacons at Intersection Approaches

11.0 25,000 1,000 2 $39,566 $2,911 $34,738

Provide Intersection Lighting 26.9 20,000 50 1 $15,854 $1,167 $39,437 *Intersection evaluations based on a service life of 20 years

Table 27: 4SG Higher Volume Intersections (AADTmajor=8000 VPD, AADTminor=1000 VPD)

Treatment (4SG) – Higher Volume Conditions

Benefit-Cost

Ratio


Investment ($)

Cost of Maintenance

($)


(years)



Prevented $2012per crash*

Equivalent Annual Dollars Spent for Fatal

+ Injury Crashes Prevented

Net Annual Benefit

Install Left-Turn Lane 14.1 400,000 20,000 10 $30,025 $2,209 $399,119 Install Right-Turn Lane 16.9 70,000 20,000 10 $25,013 $1,841 $97,987 Provide Flashing Beacons at Intersection Approaches

38.2 25,000 1,000 2 $11,362 $836 $129,625

Provide Intersection Lighting 93.8 20,000 50 1 $4,553 $335 $141,101 *Intersection evaluations based on a service life of 20 years

Four-Leg Minor Approach Stop Intersection Treatments


106

Table 28: 4ST Lower Volume Intersections (AADTmajor=1000 VPD, AADTminor=1000 VPD)

Treatment (4ST) – Lower Volume Conditions

Benefit-Cost

Ratio


Investment ($)

Cost of Maintenance

($)


(years)



Prevented $2012 per crash*



Net Annual Benefit

Install Left-Turn Lane 6.0 400,000 20,000 10 $94,167 $6,929 $151,607 Install Right-Turn Lane 16.0 70,000 20,000 10 $35,109 $2,583 $92,457 Install Bypass Lane 11.6 75,000 20,000 10 $48,375 $3,560 $69,335 Provide Flashing Beacons at Intersection Approaches

16.3 25,000 1,000 2 $34,555 $2,543 $53,396

Provide Intersection Lighting 23.1 20,000 50 1 $24,352 $1,792 $33,643 Install Traffic Signals (Stop control previous)

15.4 150,000 8,000 1 $35,834 $2,637 $271,033

Provide a Stop Bar on Minor-Road Approaches

337.7 1,000 -- 5 years (4 applications)**

$1,668 $123 $75,623

Improve Sight Distance within Sight Triangle

157.3 4,500 1,000 5 $3,581 $264 $75,365

Convert Minor-Road Stop to All-Way Stop Control

77.2 30,000 5,000 10 $7,297 $537 $187,163

*Intersection evaluations based on a service life of 20 years ** For service life calculations equivalent to other treatments in category, assume application placed multiple times at initial investment cost (adjusted for inflation).

Table 29: 4ST Higher Volume Intersections (AADTmajor=8000 VPD, AADTminor=1000 VPD)

Treatment (4ST) – Higher Benefit- Associated Costs Cost-Effectiveness


107

Volume Conditions Cost Ratio

Initial Investment

($)

Cost of Maintenance

($)


(years)



Prevented ($2012per crash)*



Prevented

Net Annual Benefit

Install Left-Turn Lane 20.8 400,000 20,000 10 $27,042 $1,990 $603,452 Install Right-Turn Lane 55.9 70,000 20,000 10 $10,083 $742 $337,206 Install Bypass Lane 40.6 75,000 20,000 10 $13,892 $1,022 $257,603 Provide Flashing Beacons at Intersection Approaches

56.8 25,000 1,000 2 $9,923 $730 $194,598

Provide Intersection Lighting 80.6 20,000 50 1 $6,993 $515 $120,924 Install Traffic Signals (stop control previous)

53.8 150,000 8,000 1 $10,291 $757 $990,379



$479 $35 $263,892


547.8 4,500 1,000 5 $1,028 $76 $263,634


268.8 30,000 5,000 10 $2,095 $154 $657,834


Three-Leg Minor Approach Stop Intersection Treatments Table 30: 3ST Low Volume Intersections (AADTmajor=1000 VPD, AADTminor=1000 VPD)

Treatment (3ST) – Low Benefit- Associated Costs Cost-Effectiveness


108

Volume Conditions Cost Ratio

Initial Investment

($)

Cost of Maintenance

($)


(years)



Prevented ($2012 per crash)*



Prevented

Net Annual Benefit


6.9 25,000 1,000 2 $79,930 $5,881 $20,693

Provide Intersection Lighting 10.5 20,000 50 1 $52,863 $3,890 $14,408 Install Traffic Signals (stop control previous)

6.9 150,000 8,000 1 $78,877 $5,804 $110,073


287.1 500 -- 5 years (4 applications)**

$1,930 $142 $32,131


66.9 4,500 1,000 5 $8,284 $610 $31,761


32.8 30,000 5,000 10 $16,879 $1,242 $78,153


Table 31: 3ST Higher Volume Intersections (AADTmajor=8000 VPD, AADTminor=1000 VPD)

Treatment (3ST) – Higher Volume Conditions

Benefit-Cost

Ratio


Investment Cost of

Maintenance Frequency of Maintenance



Net Annual


109

($) ($) (years) Value) for Fatal + Injury Crashes



Prevented

Benefit


35.8 25,000 1,000 2 $15,462 $1,138 $121,521

Provide Intersection Lighting 54.2 20,000 50 1 $10,226 $752 $80,820 Install Traffic Signals (stop control previous)

35.5 150,000 8,000 1 $15,258 $1,123 $647,264


1484.1 500 -- 5 years (4 applications)**

$373 $27 $166,567


345.7 4,500 1,000 5 $1,603 $118 $166,198


169.7 30,000 5,000 10 $3,265 $240 $414,243



110

Cost-Effectiveness Values for Signing and Pavement Marking Treatments. The treatments included in the signing and pavement marking summary are generally located along a length of roadway. As a result, the number of predicted crashes can be based on the Highway Safety Manual segment analysis for rural two-lane highways. For these segment-related treatments, the assessment includes low volume (ADT = 1000 VPD) and higher volume (ADT = 8000 VPD) segments. In addition, the HSM has a set of base conditions that define an optimal roadway configuration (e.g. 12-foot lanes, 6-foot paved shoulders, etc.). Many of the treatments do not apply to locations of this nature, but the analysis has been further divided into optimal segment configurations (represented by the HSM base conditions) and narrower segments (defined as segments with 10-foot lanes and no shoulders). The optimal segment represents a candidate state-maintained facility, while the narrower segment more appropriate represents locally managed segment configurations.

The assessment of treatments related to horizontal curves need to be represented by curved configurations, so the segment non-curve treatments assume tangent sections and the curve-related treatments are assumed to have a radius of 1060 feet and a superelevation of 6 percent. These values represent the minimum allowable thresholds for a design speed of 55 mph. The service life for the signing and pavement marking treatments is assumed to be 10 years with maintenance or reconstruction as needed during interim periods.

The following tables demonstrate the results of the cost-effectiveness assessment for signing and pavement marking treatments.


111

Table 32: Optimal (HSM Based Conditions) Segment Locations for Signing and Pavement Marking

Safety Treatments Benefit-

Cost Ratio


Investment ($)

Cost of Maintenance

($)


(years)






Prevented

Net Annual Benefit

Lower Volume (AADT=1000 VPD) Optimal Conditions Install Curve Warning Signs 33.8 2,400 1,280 5 $12,776 $1,575 $13,946 Install Chevron Signs 10.6 7,200 3,600 5 $41,777 $5,151 $12,001 Install / Upgrade Curve Warning Signs with Fluorescent Yellow Sheeting


$6,905

$851 $17,338

Install Edge Line Markings 27.9 16,000 -- 5 years (2 applications)**

$1,522 $1,876 $96,502

Install Centerline Markings 35.1 16,000 -- 5 years (2 applications)**

$1,217 $1,501 $122,657

Install Centerline and Edge Line Markings


$2,536 $3,126 $111,479

Install Post-Mounted Delineators at Horizontal Curves

5.3 12,000 -- 10*** $80,751 $9,956 $6,355

Install Arrow Signs at Horizontal Curve Locations

27.9 5,600 -- 10*** $15,353 $1,893 $18,538

Higher Volume (AADT=8000 VPD) Optimal Conditions Install Curve Warning Signs 270.1 2,400 1,280 5 $1,597 $197 $114,544 Install Chevron Signs 84.7 7,200 3,600 5 $5,222 $644 $104,772 Install / Upgrade Curve Warning Signs with


$863 $106 $140,720


112

Fluorescent Yellow Sheeting


$190 $235 $797,097

Install Centerline Markings 281.0 16,000 -- 5 years (2 applicatoins)**

$152 $188 $1,006,316



$317 $391 $942,061


42.4 12,000 -- 10*** $10,094 $1,244 $61,193


222.8 5,600 -- 10*** $1,919 $237 $153,141

*Segment evaluations based on a service life of 10 years ** For service life calculations equivalent to other treatments in category, assume application placed multiple times at initial investment cost (adjusted for inflation). *** Maintenance frequency is the same as service life, so single application assumed.


113

Table 33: Narrower Segment Locations for Signing and Pavement Marking Treatments


Cost Ratio


Investment ($)

Cost of Maintenance

($)


(years)






Prevented

Net Annual Benefit

Lower Volume (AADT=1000 VPD), Narrower (10' lanes, no shoulder) Install Curve Warning Signs 43.5 2,400 1,280 5 $10,425 $1,285 $18,091 Install Chevron Signs 13.0 7,200 3,600 5 $34,088 $4,203 $14,990 Install / Upgrade Curve Warning Signs with Fluorescent Yellow Sheeting


$5,634 $695 $21,314


$1,243 $1,533 $118,903


$995 $1,226 $150,912



$2,072 $2,555 $138,037


6.5 12,000 -- 10*** $65,889 $8,124 $8,121


34.1 5,600 -- 10*** $12,527 $1,544 $22,876

Higher Volume (AADT=8000 VPD), Narrower (10' lanes, no shoulder) Install Curve Warning Signs 428.4 2,400 1,280 5 $1,059 $131 $181,924 Install Chevron Signs 127.7 7,200 3,600 5 $3,461 $427 $158,699 Install / Upgrade Curve Warning Signs with Fluorescent Yellow Sheeting


$572 $71 $212,439


114


$126 $155 $1,204,522


$101 $124 $1,520,201



$210 $259 $1,425,080


63.9 12,000 -- 10*** $6,691 $825 $93,069


336.1 5,600 -- 10*** $1,272 $157 $231,383

*Signing and Pavement Marking Treatment evaluations based on a service life of 10 years ** For service life calculations equivalent to other treatments in category, assume application placed multiple times at initial investment cost (adjusted for inflation). *** Maintenance frequency is the same as service life, so single application assumed.


115

Cost-Effectiveness Values for Pavement and Shoulder Resurfacing or Widening.

The treatments included in pavement and shoulder resurfacing and widening category are generally located along a length of roadway or segment. As a result, a similar structure for treatment assessment to that used in the previous section will again occur. For these segment-related treatments, the assessment includes low volume (ADT = 1000 VPD) and higher volume (ADT = 8000 VPD) segments. In addition, the HSM has a set of base conditions that define an optimal roadway configuration (e.g. 12-foot lanes, 6-foot paved shoulders, etc.). Many of the treatments do not apply to locations of this nature, but the analysis has been further divided into optimal segment configurations (represented by the HSM base conditions) and narrower segments (defined as segments with 10-foot lanes and no shoulders). The optimal segment represents a candidate state-maintained facility, while the narrower segment represents locally managed segment configurations.

The assessment of treatments related to horizontal curves need to be represented by curved configurations, so the segment non-curve treatments assume tangent sections and the curve-related treatments are assumed to have a radius of 1060 feet and a superelevation of 6 percent. These values represent the minimum allowable thresholds for a design speed of 55 mph. Select treatments are only applicable to less than optimal roadway configurations. For example, the ideal road would have a paved shoulder and so the "Add Paved Shoulder" option would not apply. Similarly, there is not a need to widen the travel lane for a corridor where they are already optimal. As a result, these treatments are not included in the HSM base conditions table, but do appear in the "Narrower" road configuration. The service life for the pavement and shoulder resurfacing and widening treatments is assumed to be 20 years (the longest service life associated with this treatment) and includes, as needed, maintenance or reconstruction costs during interim periods.

The following tables demonstrate the results of the cost-effectiveness assessment for pavement and shoulder resurfacing and widening treatments.


116

Table 34: Optimal (HSM Base Condition) Segment Locations for Pavement and Shoulder Resurfacing and Widening Treatments

Safety Treatments Benefit-Cost

Ratio


Investment ($)

Cost of Maintenance

($)


(years)






Net Annual Benefit

Lower Volume (AADT=1000 VPD) Optimal Conditions Improve Pavement Friction / Increase Skid Resistance** (Assumes one 800’ long curve treatment per mile)


$168,290 $12,383 $15,379

Install a Safety Edge 33.4 2,145 -- 20*** $16,831 $1,238 $5,111 Install Centerline Rumble Strips


$26,294 $1,935 $12,525

Install Shoulder Rumble Strips


$9,466 $697 $21,302

Install Passing or Climbing Lanes

0.3 1,000,000 50,000 10 $1,946,757 $143,246 -$54,112

Higher Volume (AADT=8000 VPD) Optimal Conditions Improve Pavement Friction / Increase Skid Resistance** (Assumes one 800’ long curve treatment per mile)


$21,026 $1,547 $169,146

Install a Safety Edge 267.2 2,145 -- 20*** $2,103 $155 $42,015 Install Centerline Rumble Strips


$3,285 $242 $104,565



$1,183 $87 $173,086


2.3 1,000,000 50,000 10 $243,231 $17,897 $99,655

*Pavement and Shoulder Resurfacing and Widening treatment evaluations based on a service life of 20 years


117

** For service life calculations equivalent to other treatments in category, assume application placed multiple times at initial investment cost (adjusted for inflation). *** Maintenance frequency is the same as service life, so single application assumed. Note: Calculations based on cost per linear mile unless otherwise noted.

Table 35: Narrower Segment Locations for Pavement and Shoulder Resurfacing and Widening Treatments

Safety Treatments

Benefit-Cost

Ratio

Associated Costs Cost-Effectiveness Initial Investment

($) Cost of

Maintenance ($)


(years)





+ Injury Crashes

Prevented

Net Annual Benefit

Lower Volume (AADT=1000 VPD), Narrower (10' lanes, no shoulder) Improve Pavement Friction / Increase Skid Resistance** (Assumes one 800’ long curve treatment per mile)


$137,411 $10,111 $20,313

Install a Safety Edge

40.9 2,145 -- 20*** $13,742 $1,011 $6,295

Install Centerline Rumble Strips


$21,470 $1,580 $15,478



$7,729 $569 $26,172

Add Paved Shoulder

0.5 400,000 20,000 2 $1,343,135 $98,830 -$21,093


0.4 1,000,000 50,000 10 $1,589,553 $116,962 -$49,179


118

Safety Treatments

Benefit-Cost

Ratio


($) Cost of

Maintenance ($)


(years)





+ Injury Crashes

Prevented

Net Annual Benefit

Widen Existing Travel Lanes by Two Feet or Less per Lane

0.3 500,000 25,000 10 $1,986,942 $146,203 -$27,278

Higher Volume (AADT=8000 VPD), Narrower (10' lanes, no shoulder) Improve Pavement Friction / Increase Skid Resistance** (Assumes one 800’ long curve treatment per mile)


$13,933 $1,025 $258,611

Install a Safety Edge

403.2 2,145 -- 20*** $1,393 $103 $63,487

Install Centerline Rumble Strips


$2,177 $160 $158,115



$784 $58 $261,396

Add Paved Shoulder

4.5 400,000 20,000 2 $136,188 $10,021 $133,755


3.5 1,000,000 50,000 10 $161,173 $11,859 $189,119

Widen Existing Travel Lanes by Two Feet or Less per Lane

2.8 500,000 25,000 10 $201,467 $14,824 $68,041

*Pavement and Shoulder Resurfacing and Widening treatment evaluations based on a service life of 20 years** For service life


119

Safety Treatments

Benefit-Cost

Ratio


($) Cost of

Maintenance ($)


(years)





+ Injury Crashes

Prevented

Net Annual Benefit

calculations equivalent to other treatments in category, assume application placed multiple times at initial investment cost (adjusted for inflation). *** Maintenance frequency is the same as service life, so single application assumed. Note: Calculations based on cost per linear mile unless otherwise noted.


120

Cost-Effectiveness Values for Roadside Infrastructure Safety Improvement Treatments. The treatments included in the roadside infrastructure category are generally located along a length of roadway or segment. The roadside treatments adhere to the same assumptions identified in previous sections. Once again, the HSM base condition configuration includes optimal design features including a reasonably flat roadside slope, so the treatment "flatten roadside slope" could only be assessed for the narrower test condition. The optimal segment represents a candidate state-maintained facility, while the narrower segment represents locally managed segment configurations.

The service life for the roadside infrastructure treatments is assumed to be 20 years (the longest service life associated with this treatment) and includes, as needed, maintenance or reconstruction costs during interim periods.

The following tables demonstrate the results of the cost-effectiveness assessment for the roadside infrastructure treatments.


121

Table 36: Optimal (HSM Base Condition) Segment Locations for Roadside Infrastructure Treatments


Cost Ratio


Investment ($)

Cost of Maintenance

($)


(years)






Net Annual Benefit

Lower Volume (AADT=1000 VPD) Optimal Conditions Create or Increase Clear Zone 1.0 300,000 -- -- $564,944 $41,570 -$214 Remove or Shield Obstacles in Clear Zone

3.1 70,000 7,000 5 $198,600 $14,613 $12,814

Higher Volume (AADT=8000 VPD) Optimal Conditions Create or Increase Clear Zone 7.9 300,000 -- -- $70,585 $5,194 $152,892 Remove or Shield Obstacles in Clear Zone

24.5 70,000 7,000 5 $24,813 $1,826 $146,039

*Roadside infrastructure treatment evaluations based on a service life of 20 years

Table 37: Narrower Segment Locations for Roadside Infrastructure Treatments


Cost Ratio


Investment ($)

Cost of Maintenance

($)


(years)





+ Injury Crashes

Prevented

Net Annual Benefit

Lower Volume (AADT=1000 VPD), Narrower (10' lanes, no shoulder) Create or Increase Clear Zone 1.5 300,000 -- -- $377,100 $27,748 $10,675 Remove or Shield Obstacles in Clear Zone

4.6 70,000 7,000 5 $132,565 $9,754 $22,289


122

Flatten Roadside Slope 0.2 1,000,000 -- -- $3,142,502 $231,231 -$59,333 Higher Volume (AADT=8000 VPD), Narrower (10' lanes, no shoulder)

Create or Increase Clear Zone 14.6 300,000 -- -- $38,284 $2,817 $300,512 Remove or Shield Obstacles in Clear Zone

45.2 70,000 7,000 5 $13,458 $990 $274,491

Flatten Roadside Slope 1.9 1,000,000 -- -- $319,036 $23,475 $66,768 *Pavement and Shoulder Resurfacing and Widening treatment evaluations based on a service life of 20 years


123

Cost-Effectiveness Values for Capital Improvement Safety Treatments. A variety of capital improvement treatments are reputed to positively influence safety. The most commonly identified treatments included intersection conversion (from traditional intersections to roundabouts, interchanges, or J-turn configurations). Each of these treatments is based on converting a traditional intersection (assumed to be a four-leg signalized intersection).

For the purposes of the cost-effective evaluation, the HSM base models for a lower volume intersection (1000 VPD for both roads) as well as the higher volume (8000 VPD for major and 1000 VPD for minor) were again incorporated into this analysis. It is unlikely that an expensive interchange could be justified at a low volume intersection, but for consistency this analysis was included. An analysis used a service life of 20 years; however, the interchange would be likely to have a 25 to 30 year life, so a 10 percent salvage value was included for this treatment.

In addition to the intersection capital improvements, several additional treatments were explored with the expectation of performing a cost-effectiveness assessment, but in each case a critical component needed for the analysis could not be located. In most cases, the topic was too broad (i.e. modify horizontal and/or vertical geometry), and so the safety expectations for the treatment could not be identified.

The following table demonstrates the results of the cost-effectiveness analysis for these capital improvement treatments.


124

Table 38: Optimal (HM Base Condition) Segment Locations for Capital Improvement Safety Treatments


Cost Ratio


Investment ($)

Cost of Maintenance

($)


(years)






Net Annual Benefit

Lower Volume (AADT=1000 VPD for major and minor), Optimal (HSM Base Conditions) Convert Traditional Stop Intersection to Roundabout

4.8 400,000 40,000 10 $116,692 $8,586 $119,723

Convert Traditional Signalized Intersection to Roundabout

4.8 400,000 40,000 10 $89,076 $6,554 $118,100

Reconstruct At-Grade Signalized Intersection to Interchange

0.1 10,000,000 40,000** 10 $3,992,828 $293,799 -$629,464

Convert a Traditional Stop Intersection into a J-turn

46.1 50,000 5,000 10 $12,438 $915 $177,087

Convert a Traditional Signalized Intersection into a J-turn

45.4 50,000 5,000 10 $9,423 $693 $174,577

Higher Volume (AADT=8000 VPD for major and 1000 VPD for minor), Optimal (HSM Base Conditions) Convert Traditional Stop Intersection to Roundabout

16.8 400,000 40,000 10 $33,511 $2,466 $494,892

Convert Traditional Signalized Intersection to Roundabout

16.6 400,000 40,000 10 $25,580 $1,882 $489,240

Reconstruct At-Grade Signalized Intersection to Interchange

0.4 10,000,000 40,000** 10 $1,146,639 $84,372 -$443,787

Convert a Traditional Stop Intersection into a J-turn

161.4 50,000 5,000 10 $3,598 $257 $629,951

Convert a Traditional Signalized Intersection into a J-turn

159.1 50,000 5,000 10 $2,665 $196 $620,866

*Pavement and Shoulder Resurfacing and Widening treatment evaluations based on a service life of 20 years ** Calculations included a salvage value of $1,000,000.

study of the best practices for implementing cost …hrrr... · 2013-12-20 · implementing cost...

Documents