wildlife vehicle collision reduction study. why this study
TRANSCRIPT
Wildlife Vehicle Collision Reduction Study
WhyThisStudy
Study Results
Crash DataImpacts of CrashesCost of CrashesMinimization MeasuresWhat’s Next
Crash Data
Total WVCs and Total Crashes by Total WVCs and Total Crashes by YearYear
(Data Source: GES)(Data Source: GES)
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
FY02-03 FY03-04 FY04-05 FY05-06
Fiscal Year
Ann
ual W
VCs
Annual WVCs Estimated by Annual WVCs Estimated by Insurance IndustryInsurance Industry
Monthly Distribution of WVCs
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Pro
port
ion
of
Collis
ion
sFARS HSIS GES
Time-of-Day DistributionTime-of-Day Distribution
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2021 22 23
Hour of Day
Pro
port
ion
of
Collis
ion
s
FARS
GES
HSIS
WVCs by Number of LanesWVCs by Number of Lanes
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Number of Lanes
Perc
en
t of
Accid
en
ts
WVC
ALL
Crashes by Average Daily TrafficCrashes by Average Daily Traffic
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
1 to5000
5001-10,000
10,001-15,000
15,001-20,000
20,001-25,000
25,001-30,000
30,001-35,000
>35,000
ADT
Pro
port
ion
of
Collis
ion
s
ALLWVC
Age Distribution for All Age Distribution for All Crashes and WVCsCrashes and WVCs
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91
Driver Age
Pro
port
ion
of
Collis
ion
s
AllWVC
Accident Distribution by Posted Accident Distribution by Posted Speed LimitSpeed Limit
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Speed Limit
Pro
port
ion
of
Accid
en
ts
ALL
WVC
Costs OfCrashes
Estimated Costs of WVC Estimated Costs of WVC (Deer, Elk, and Moose)
Up to $8 billion annually. Injury,
property damage, crash scene response and
investigation.
Severity of Injury Distribution Severity of Injury Distribution for WVCs vs. All Crashesfor WVCs vs. All Crashes
WVCs Only1.7% 0.5%
2.3%
95.4%
0.04%
NonePossibleMinorSevereFatal
All Collisions
68.3%
17.6%
9.4%4.3%
0.5%
NonePossibleMinorSevereFatal
MinimizationMeasuresfor Reducing WVCs
Long Tunnels and Long Long Tunnels and Long BridgesBridges100% effective in WVC reductions, but very expensive
Wildlife Fencing
Wildlife fencing along US Hwy. 93 on Flathead Indian Reservation, MT
80-99% reported reductions in WVCs
Wildlife Crossing with Fencing
87% average reduction in WVCs
Promising Mitigation Measures
to be Further Investigated
2 Most Promising
Animal detection Systems Reduce speed by traffic calming or reducing the design speed
Mitigation measure Cost ($
/km /yr))
% DVC Reductio
n
Benefit ($ /km /yr))
Balance ($ /km /yr))
Standard warning signs $18 0% $0 -$18
Anti-fertility treatment $61,702 50% $20,970 -$40,732
Long bridges $781,250 100% $41,940 -$739,310
Long tunnels or long bridges
$1,500,000 100% $41,940 -$1,458,060
Animal detection systems (ADS)
$31,300 82% $34,391 $3,091
Population culling $2,508 50% $20,970 $18,462
Relocation $10,260 50% $20,970 $10,710
Fence (incl. dig barrier) $3,760 87% $36,488 $32,728
Fence with gap and crosswalk
$5,585 40% $16,776 $11,191
Fence with gap and ADS $9,930 82% $34,391 $24,461
Fence with underpasses $5,860 87% $36,488 $30,628
Fence with overpasses $26,485 87% $36,488 $10,003
Fence with under- and overpasses
$7,510 87% $36,488 $28,978
Measures For Which Research or Construction Resources
Should Not Be Used• Standard wildlife warning signs• Deer reflectors and mirrors • Audio signals in the right-of-way or deer whistles on vehicles• Olfactory repellants• Deer flagging models• Hazing• Intercept feeding• Wildlife relocation in order to reduce population size• Anti-fertility treatment in order to reduce population size• Seasonal road closures• Reflective collars placed on wildlife
What’s Next
WVC training manual
WVC training course