DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluation of Michigan's Engineering Improvements for Older Drivers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluation of Michigan's Engineering Improvements for Older Drivers RC 1636 September 30, 2015 Evaluation of Michigan’s Engineering Improvements for Older Drivers FINAL REPORT Valerian Kwigizile, Jun-Seok Oh, Ron Van Houten, Diana Prieto, Richard Boateng, Lusanni Rodriguez, Andrew Ceifetz, Joyce Yassin, Jeffrey Bagdade, and Patrick Andridge Transportation Research Center for Livable Communities Western Michigan University Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. MDOT Project Manager RC 1636 N/A Kimberly Lariviere 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Evaluation of Michigan’s Engineering Improvements for Older September 30, 2015 Drivers 6. Performing Organization Code N/A 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Org. Report No. Valerian Kwigizile, Jun-Seok Oh, Ron Van Houten, Diana N/A Prieto, Richard Boateng, Lusanni Rodriguez, Andrew Ceifetz, Joyce Yassin, Jeffrey Bagdade, Patrick Andridge 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Western Michigan University N/A 1903 West Michigan Avenue 11. Contract No. Kalamazoo, MI 49008 2013-0069 11(a). Authorization No. Z3 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report & Period Covered Michigan Department of Transportation Final Report Research Administration 10/01/2013 - 9/30/2015 8885 Ricks Rd. P.O. Box 30049 14. Sponsoring Agency Code N/A Lansing MI 48909 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract In 2004, the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) began a comprehensive program to implement engineering countermeasures to address the needs of older drivers. The countermeasures included the use of Clearview Font on Guide Signs (freeway and non-freeway), installation of Box Span signals, installation of pedestrian countdown signals, use of Fluorescent Yellow Sheeting on warning signs, and use of arrow-per-lane on guide signs. This study aimed at evaluating safety benefits of the selected countermeasures. Evaluation was performed through a perception survey of Michigan drivers and analysis of crash data. Safety Performance Functions (SPF) for these improvements were developed as part of the study. Crash Modification Factors (CMF) for each countermeasure were developed through the before-after analysis of crash data. Finally, the benefit cost analysis of each countermeasure was performed and is documented in this report. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Older drivers, older pedestrian, Clearview font, No restrictions. This document is available Fluorescent Yellow Sheeting, box span signal, pedestrian to the public through the Michigan countdown signal, arrow-per lane sign Department of Transportation. 19. Security Classification - report 20. Security Classification - page 21. No. of Pages 22. Price 117 Unclassified Unclassified N/A Disclaimer This publication is disseminated in the interest of information exchange. The Michigan Department of Transportation (hereinafter referred to as MDOT) expressly disclaims any liability, of any kind, or for any reason, that might otherwise arise out of any use of this publication or the information or data provided in the publication. MDOT further disclaims any responsibility for typographical errors or accuracy of the information provided or contained within this information. MDOT makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding the quality, content, completeness, suitability, adequacy, sequence, accuracy or timeliness of the information and data provided, or that the contents represent standards, specifications, or regulations. Acknowledgements The research team would like to thank Ms. Kimberly Lariviere, the Project Manager, and Mr. Michael Townley, the Research Manager, for their support to this project. Also, we would like to thank the following members of the Research Advisory Panel for their suggestions and comments, which helped in shaping and carrying out this study: Mr. Mark Bott, MDOT Ms. Paula Corlett, MDOT Ms. Jennifer Foley, MDOT Mr. David Morena, FHWA Mr. Brett Scafuri, MDOT We are also thankful to Mr. Dean Kanitz (MDOT) for his input on this research. His input on how to incorporate the findings of this research into the existing MDOT HSM Spreadsheet is highly appreciated. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... iv LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... vii 1 Introduction and Background ................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Research Problem and Motivation ............................................................................... 1 1.1.1 Clearview Font on Guide Signs (freeway and non-freeway) ................................... 2 1.1.2 Box Span Signal Installation ..................................................................................... 2 1.1.3 Pedestrian Countdown Signal Installation ................................................................ 3 1.1.4 Fluorescent Yellow Sheeting .................................................................................... 3 1.1.5 Arrow-Per-Lane Signing ........................................................................................... 4 1.2 Research Objectives ..................................................................................................... 5 1.3 Scope of Research and Report Organization ................................................................ 5 2 Literature Review .................................................................................................................. 6 2.1 Clearview Fonts on Guide Signs (Freeway and Non-Freeway) ................................... 6 2.2 Box Span Signal Installations ....................................................................................... 9 2.3 Pedestrian Countdown Signals (PCS) ........................................................................ 11 2.4 Fluorescent Yellow Sheeting on Warning Signs ........................................................ 15 2.5 Arrow-Per Lane on Diagrammatic Signing ................................................................ 16 3 Survey of Michigan Drivers ................................................................................................ 23 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 23 3.2 Survey Design and Administration............................................................................. 23 3.3 Analysis of Survey Data ............................................................................................. 24 3.3.1 Clearview Font on Guide Signs .............................................................................. 25 3.3.2 Pedestrian Countdown Signal ................................................................................. 28 3.3.3 Fluorescent Yellow Sheeting .................................................................................. 30 3.3.4 Lane Use Arrows .................................................................................................... 33 3.3.5 Box Span Signal Installations ................................................................................. 36 4 Data Collection .................................................................................................................... 38 4.1 Clearview Font and Fluorescent Yellow Sheeting (Freeways and Non-Freeways) ... 39 4.2 Box Span Signal Installations ..................................................................................... 45 i 4.3 Pedestrian Countdown Signals (PCS) ........................................................................ 47 4.4 Arrow-Per-Lane Signing ............................................................................................ 49 5 Development of Safety Performance Functions (SPFs) ...................................................... 53 5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 53 5.2 Modeling Approach .................................................................................................... 53 5.3 SPFs for Segments ...................................................................................................... 55 5.3.1 SPF for Freeways .................................................................................................... 55 5.3.2 SPF for Urban Non-Freeway Segments.................................................................. 58 5.3.3 SPF for Rural Non-Freeway Segments ................................................................... 63 5.4 SPFs for Intersections ................................................................................................. 70 6 Estimation of Crash Modification Factors (CMFs) ............................................................. 80 6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 80 6.2 Empirical Bayes Method ............................................................................................ 80 6.3 Before-After with Comparison Group ........................................................................ 82 6.4 CMF Results and Discussions ...................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Transport and Map Symbols Range: 1F680–1F6FF
    Transport and Map Symbols Range: 1F680–1F6FF This file contains an excerpt from the character code tables and list of character names for The Unicode Standard, Version 14.0 This file may be changed at any time without notice to reflect errata or other updates to the Unicode Standard. See https://www.unicode.org/errata/ for an up-to-date list of errata. See https://www.unicode.org/charts/ for access to a complete list of the latest character code charts. See https://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/Unicode-14.0/ for charts showing only the characters added in Unicode 14.0. See https://www.unicode.org/Public/14.0.0/charts/ for a complete archived file of character code charts for Unicode 14.0. Disclaimer These charts are provided as the online reference to the character contents of the Unicode Standard, Version 14.0 but do not provide all the information needed to fully support individual scripts using the Unicode Standard. For a complete understanding of the use of the characters contained in this file, please consult the appropriate sections of The Unicode Standard, Version 14.0, online at https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode14.0.0/, as well as Unicode Standard Annexes #9, #11, #14, #15, #24, #29, #31, #34, #38, #41, #42, #44, #45, and #50, the other Unicode Technical Reports and Standards, and the Unicode Character Database, which are available online. See https://www.unicode.org/ucd/ and https://www.unicode.org/reports/ A thorough understanding of the information contained in these additional sources is required for a successful implementation.
    [Show full text]
  • Traffic and Road Sign Recognition
    Traffic and Road Sign Recognition Hasan Fleyeh This thesis is submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of Napier University for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy July 2008 Abstract This thesis presents a system to recognise and classify road and traffic signs for the purpose of developing an inventory of them which could assist the highway engineers’ tasks of updating and maintaining them. It uses images taken by a camera from a moving vehicle. The system is based on three major stages: colour segmentation, recognition, and classification. Four colour segmentation algorithms are developed and tested. They are a shadow and highlight invariant, a dynamic threshold, a modification of de la Escalera’s algorithm and a Fuzzy colour segmentation algorithm. All algorithms are tested using hundreds of images and the shadow-highlight invariant algorithm is eventually chosen as the best performer. This is because it is immune to shadows and highlights. It is also robust as it was tested in different lighting conditions, weather conditions, and times of the day. Approximately 97% successful segmentation rate was achieved using this algorithm. Recognition of traffic signs is carried out using a fuzzy shape recogniser. Based on four shape measures - the rectangularity, triangularity, ellipticity, and octagonality, fuzzy rules were developed to determine the shape of the sign. Among these shape measures octangonality has been introduced in this research. The final decision of the recogniser is based on the combination of both the colour and shape of the sign. The recogniser was tested in a variety of testing conditions giving an overall performance of approximately 88%.
    [Show full text]
  • Road Traffic Signs and Regulations in the Netherlands Note This Is an Abridged Popular Version Published for Instructional Use
    Road Traffic Signs and Regulations in the Netherlands Note This is an abridged popular version published for instructional use. Due to abridging and modification of the text, no legal status may be derived from this document. The author accepts no liability for the consequences of interpreting the rules. The complete 1990 Traffic Rules and Signs Regulations (RVV 1990) can be viewed at www.ween.nl Road Traffic Signs and Regulations in the Netherlands Summary of Contents Road Trac Act 1994 (WVW 1994) 1 Traffic Conduct 6 1.1 Rules of Conduct 6 Trac Regulations and Road Signs (RVV 1990) 2 Traffic Regulations 9 2.1 Road position 9 2.2 Overtaking 11 2.3 Queues 12 2.4 Approaching road junctions 12 2.5 Giving priority 13 2.5a Level crossings 13 2.6 Cuing across military columns and motorised funeral processions 13 2.7 Turning 14 2.8 Speed limits 15 2.9 Waiting 19 2.10 Parking 19 2.11 Parking bicycles and mopeds 22 2.12 Signals and identification marks 22 2.13 Using lights while driving 24 2.14 Using lights while stationary 27 2.15 Special lights 28 2.16 Motorways and main highways 30 2.17 Roads across recreational areas 31 2.18 Roundabouts 31 2.19 Pedestrians 32 2.20 Emergency vehicles 32 2.21 Stray livestock 32 2.22 Boarding and alighting passengers 33 2.23 Towing 33 2.24 Special manoeuvres 33 2.25 Unnecessary noise 34 2.26 Warning triangles 34 2.26a Seats 35 2.27 Seat belts and child safety systems 36 2.28 Safety helmets 40 2.30 Use of mobile telecommunications equipment 41 2.31 Conveyance of persons in or on trailers and in loading space 42 3 Road
    [Show full text]
  • Road Signs and Other Devices of Traffic Control in Finland
    Road signs and other devices of traffic control in Finland 1 Danger warning signs Right bend Left bend Several bends, Several bends, Dangerous the first to the right the first to the left descent Steep ascent Road narrows Two-way traffic Swing bridge Ferry, quay or river bank Traffic congestion Uneven road Road works Loose gravel Slippery road Dangerous Pedestrian Children Cyclists Ski track shoulders crossing Elks Reindeer Intersection with Intersection with minor Intersection with equal roads (give road (vehicles coming minor road way to the vehicles from the minor road coming from the right) have to give way) Intersection with Light signals Roundabout Tramway line Level-crossing minor road without gates 2 Danger warning signs Level-crossing Additional sign at Level-crossing Level-crossing Falling rocks with gates approach to with one track with two or more tracks level-crossing Aircrafts flying at Cross-wind Other danger low altitude Signs regulating priority Priority road End of priority Priority over oncoming traffic Priority for Give way (to vehicles Stop and give way oncoming traffic on the road you (to vehicles on the road are approaching) you are approaching) Prohibitory or restrictive signs Closed to all vehicles No entry for power- No entry for truck No entry for vehicle No entry for power- driven vehicles and van combinations driven agricultural vehicle 3 Prohibitory or restrictive signs No entry for No entry for No entry for vehicles No entry for bus No entry for moped motor cycle motor sledge carrying dangerous goods No entry
    [Show full text]
  • Direction Signs on Roads and Motorways
    Direction Signs On Roads And Motorways Josh is flippantly Pindaric after demographic Marven degum his lectionary strategically. Inodorous and patronizing Sibyl muffles: which Torrance is wrathless enough? Isaac remains reproachless: she rhapsodizing her premolar reverberates too sluggishly? The road on highway authority, which is no. Full directions for them is a blue panel of pedestrians whomight be surprised by. Where it is prohibited from motorway? Speaking into her autobiography is published, State Goverment of Jharkhand, tunnel mouth etc. The road users to saturday during restricted, it isimportant that you leave your left hand lane, credit card numbers. Mauritius is a former British colony. The signs you should follow will all have the same symbols on them to show which route you should take. Contacts for common benefits are listed below. Therefore, are involved in an incident, you may be able to make out only the shape of a sign. British roads are fairly narrow. Howeverthis number may need to be reduced depending on the extent of other signage at thejunction. They taking These signs are sovereign or rectangular ters or symbols. In environmentally sensitiveareas, you with autobahn routes and how should only. Dead end of a system based on a motorway ramp crossing intersections that all road you a sign blow horn before applying to and signs. The Cirencester highway is approximately half a mile long. White symbols on motorways and legally reduce speed cameras still do. When waiting restrictions in directional road or motorways. Special road or motorways, motorway and red. Up or caravan site uses cookies again, but slower than in modern society.
    [Show full text]
  • The Public Debate on Jock Kinneir's Road Sign Alphabet
    Ole Lund The public debate on Jock Kinneir’s road sign alphabet Prelude There has been some recent interest In August 1961 two researchers at the Road Research Laboratory in in Jock Kinneir and Margaret Britain published a paper on the ‘Relative effectiveness of some letter Calvert’s influential traffic signs types designed for use on road traffic signs’ (Christie and Rutley and accompanying letterforms for 1961b). It appeared in the journal Roads and Road Construction. A Britain’s national roads from the late shorter version was published in the same month (Christie and 1950s and early 1960s. Their signs Design and alphabets prompted a unique Rutley 1961c). These two papers were both based on a report ‘not for public debate on letterform legibility, publication’ finished in January the same year (Christie and Rutley which provoked the Road Research 1961a). These papers represented the culmination of a vigorous public Laboratory to carry out large-scale debate on letterform legibility which had been going on since March legibility experiments. Many people 1959. The controversy and the Road Research Laboratory’s subse- participated in the debate, in national quent experiments happened in connection with the introduction newspapers, design and popular of direction signs for Britain’s new motorways.¹ science magazines, technical journals, and radio. It was about alphabets and The design of these directional and other informational motorway signs that would soon become – and signs represented the first phase of an overall development of a new still are – very prominent in Britain’s coherent system of traffic signs in Britain between 1957 and 1963.
    [Show full text]
  • (Mostly) True Story of Helvetica and the New York City Subway by Paul Shaw November 18, 2008
    FROM VOICE ~ TOPICS: branding/identity, history, signage, typography The (Mostly) True Story of Helvetica and the New York City Subway by Paul Shaw November 18, 2008 here is a commonly held belief that Helvetica is the signage typeface of the New York City subway system, a belief reinforced by Helvetica, Gary Hustwit’s popular 2007 documentary T about the typeface. But it is not true—or rather, it is only somewhat true. Helvetica is the official typeface of the MTA today, but it was not the typeface specified by Unimark International when it created a new signage system at the end of the 1960s. Why was Helvetica not chosen originally? What was chosen in its place? Why is Helvetica used now, and when did the changeover occur? To answer those questions this essay explores several important histories: of the New York City subway system, transportation signage in the 1960s, Unimark International and, of course, Helvetica. These four strands are woven together, over nine pages, to tell a story that ultimately transcends the simple issue of Helvetica and the subway. The Labyrinth As any New Yorker—or visitor to the city—knows, the subway system is a labyrinth. This is because it is an amalgamation of three separate systems, two of which incorporated earlier urban railway lines. The current New York subway system was formed in 1940 when the IRT (Interborough Rapid Transit), the BMT (Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit) and the IND (Independent) lines were merged. The IRT lines date to 1904; the BMT lines to 1908 (when it was the BRT, or Brooklyn Rapid Transit); and the IND to 1932.
    [Show full text]
  • Synthesis of Variable Speed Limit Signs May 2017 6
    Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The U.S. Government does not endorse products of manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document. Quality Assurance Statement The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. The FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement. Cover images: Federal Highway Administration 2 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-HOP-17-003 No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Synthesis of Variable Speed Limit Signs May 2017 6. Performing Organizations Code 7. Authors 8. Performing Organization Bryan Katz, Jiaqi Ma, Heather Rigdon, Kayla Sykes, Report No. Zhitong Huang, Kelli Raboy 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Leidos 11251 Roger Bacon Drive 11. Contract or Grant No. Reston, VA 20190 Contract No. DTFH61-12-D-00045 ToXcel, LLC Task T-5009 7140 Heritage Village Plaza Gainesville, VA 20155 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period U.S. Department of Transportation Covered Federal Highway Administration Research Synthesis, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE March 2016–December 2016 Washington, DC 20590 14.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of the Safety Effectiveness of Clearview Font and Fluorescent Yellow Sheeting on Michigan Freeways and Non- Freeways
    Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU Master's Theses Graduate College 8-2015 Evaluation of the Safety Effectiveness of Clearview Font and Fluorescent Yellow Sheeting on Michigan Freeways and Non- Freeways Lusanni Mercedes Acosta Rodrieuez Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses Part of the Civil Engineering Commons, and the Transportation Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Acosta Rodrieuez, Lusanni Mercedes, "Evaluation of the Safety Effectiveness of Clearview Font and Fluorescent Yellow Sheeting on Michigan Freeways and Non-Freeways" (2015). Master's Theses. 616. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/616 This Masters Thesis-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EVALUATION OF THE SAFETY EFFECTIVENESS OF CLEARVIEW FONT AND FLUORESCENT YELLOW SHEETING ON MICHIGAN FREEWAYS AND NON-FREEWAYS by Lusanni Mercedes Acosta Rodriguez A thesis submitted to the Graduate College in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Engineering Civil Engineering Western Michigan University August 2015 Thesis Committee: Valerian Kwigizile, Ph.D., Chair Jun-Seok Oh, Ph.D. Zhanbo Sun, Ph.D. Diana Prieto, Ph.D. EVALUATION OF THE SAFETY EFFECTIVENESS OF CLEARVIEW FONT AND FLUORESCENT YELLOW SHEETING ON MICHIGAN FREEWAYS AND NON-FREEWAYS Lusanni Mercedes Acosta Rodríguez, M.S.E Western Michigan University, 2015 Halation or irradiation makes guide sign fonts difficult to read. Missing the necessary guide sign information causes anxiety and confusion to drivers, and hence may lead to crashes.
    [Show full text]
  • How New Technologies Could Change Road Signage in the Future
    David Casacuberta The Web as Utopia Architecture journals Big data How New Technologies Creative process Critical design Could Change Road Signage Cultural analytics Curricular revision Digital signage in the Future Digital publishing Driver assistance systems Reliance on new technologies for road transport is increasing, Digital revolution both on the road and in the car. While some may still need to Global positioning system be perfected, several current devices are presented to show Domus Road signage how they can clearly be of help to drivers. The influence of new technologies on road signage is also examined, in the light Editorial design of a hypothesis that illustrates how road signs could evolve if designers took such technologies as their starting point. Graphic design Information design Information visualisation Innovation Intangible support Over the last decade the introduction of new tech- what the driver had achieved with a little rental car Interaction Joan Zalacain nologies into road transport has increased dramati- and no previous experience driving in snow, but the Interaction design cally. Their presence continues to grow, both on question was why? Why had the driver decided to Internet “There will come a point roads and in cars, improving safety and aiding driv- continue all the way to the top when the signs further ers to have smooth and comfortable journeys. They down the road advised against it? The answer he gave (In)visible design when essential and suggest routes, help avoid traffic and warn of pos- was ‘I just followed the GPS!’ Disregarding all the ad- Multi-script sible hazards miles ahead.
    [Show full text]
  • Manual for the Streets
    Manual for Streets Manual for Streets Published by Thomas Telford Publishing, Thomas Telford Ltd, 1 Heron Quay, London E14 4JD. www.thomastelford.com Distributors for Thomas Telford books are USA: ASCE Press, 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA 20191-4400, USA Japan: Maruzen Co. Ltd, Book Department, 3–10 Nihonbashi 2-chome, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 103 Australia: DA Books and Journals, 648 Whitehorse Road, Mitcham 3132, Victoria First published 2007 Published for the Department for Transport under licence from the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO, 2007 Copyright in the typographical arrangement and design rests with the Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO. This publication (excluding logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for non-commercial research, private study or for circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The copyright of the material must be acknowledged and the title and publisher specified. This publication is value added material and as such is not subject to the Public Sector Information Click-Use Licence System. For any other use of this material apply for a Value Added Click-Use Licence at www.opsi.gov.uk or write to the Licensing Division, Office of Public Sector Information, St Clements House, 2–16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ. Fax: 01603 723000 or e-mail: [email protected]. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-0-7277-3501-0 This book is published on the understanding that the authors are solely responsible for the statements made and opinions expressed in it and that its publication does not necessarily imply that such statements and/or opinions are or reflect the views or opinions of the publishers.
    [Show full text]
  • Road Markings
    ROAD MARKINGS CHAPTER 7 August 2019 Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 7 – Road Markings Contents Page 7.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................6 General ...........................................................................................................................................6 The Function Of Road Markings ....................................................................................................6 Classes Of Marking ........................................................................................................................7 Speed .............................................................................................................................................8 Legal ...............................................................................................................................................8 Materials .........................................................................................................................................8 7.2 Transverse Markings ...................................................................................................................9 Stop Line (RRM 017)......................................................................................................................9 Tram Stop Line (RRM 031) ......................................................................................................... 11 Yield Line (RRM 018) .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]