DOCSLIB.ORG

Comparison of Identification and Ranking Methodologies for Speed-Related Crash Locations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comparison of Identification and Ranking Methodologies for Speed-Related Crash Locations COMPARISON OF IDENTIFICATION AND RANKING METHODOLOGIES FOR SPEED-RELATED CRASH LOCATIONS Final Report SPR 352 COMPARISON OF IDENTIFICATION AND RANKING METHODOLOGIES FOR SPEED-RELATED CRASH LOCATIONS SPR 352 Final Report by Christopher M. Monsere, Ph.D., P.E., Research Assistant Professor Robert L. Bertini, Ph.D., P.E., Associate Professor Peter G. Bosa, Delia Chi, Casey Nolan, Tarek Abou El-Seoud Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering Portland State University for Oregon Department of Transportation Research Unit 200 Hawthorne SE, Suite B-240 Salem OR 97301-5192 and Federal Highway Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590 June 2006 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-OR-RD-06-14 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Comparison of Identification and Ranking Methodologies for Speed-Related June 2006 Crash Locations 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Christopher M. Monsere, Robert L. Bertini, Peter G. Bosa, Delia Chi, Casey Nolan, and Tarek Abou El-Seoud Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering Portland State University -- PO Box 751 -- Portland, OR 97207 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Oregon Department of Transportation Research Unit 11. Contract or Grant No. 200 Hawthorne Ave. SE, Suite B-240 Salem, Oregon 97301-5192 SPR 352 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Oregon Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Final Report Research Unit and 400 Seventh Street SW 200 Hawthorne Ave. SE, Suite B-240 Washington, D.C. 20590 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Salem, Oregon 97301-5192 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract Over 60,000 crashes were reported on the Oregon state highway system from 2000–2002. Of these, speed was a primary causal factor in 27% of total crashes and 36% of all fatal crashes. Excessive speed is a driver behavior that can be influenced by a wide variety of countermeasures. However, different methods for analyzing crash data often result in setting different priorities for safety improvements. The state of Oregon currently does not have a developed methodology for prioritizing locations for review of countermeasure deployment. When making decisions about countermeasure deployment with limited resources, it is important they be allocated to locations that will result in the greatest impact. The objective of this study was to improve the procedures used to select locations for speed-related safety countermeasures. The report includes a literature review focused on the relationship between speed and crashes, as well as past research on speed reduction techniques. An analysis of speed-related crash data indicated that a number of variables such as ice, curves, and others are overrepresented in speed crashes. Based on these findings, the study then developed and compared alternate ranking methods for speed/ice crash locations, including a unique refinement of the rate quality control (RQC) method, using climate data that helps identify road segments that exhibit statistically significant high speed/ice crash patterns. The results of the method were highlighted with a case study of identified highway sections using a new zonal RQC. To demonstrate the feasibility of this analysis technique, the top 20 sites identified by the refined screening technique were reviewed for possible countermeasures. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Speed crashes, ice crashes, ranking method, network screening, Copies available from NTIS, and online at speed countermeasure, GIS crash analysis, rate quality control, http://www.oregon.gov//ODOT/TD/TP_RES/ crash data. 19. Security Classification (of this report) 20. Security Classification (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 108 Technical Report Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized A Printed on recycled paper i SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol LENGTH LENGTH in inches 25.4 millimeters mm mm millimeters 0.039 inches in ft feet 0.305 Meters m m meters 3.28 feet ft yd yards 0.914 Meters m m meters 1.09 yards yd mi miles 1.61 kilometers km km kilometers 0.621 miles mi AREA AREA in2 square inches 645.2 millimeters squared mm2 mm2 millimeters squared 0.0016 square inches in2 ft2 square feet 0.093 meters squared m2 m2 meters squared 10.764 square feet ft2 yd2 square yards 0.836 meters squared m2 ha hectares 2.47 acres ac ac acres 0.405 Hectares ha km2 kilometers squared 0.386 square miles mi2 mi2 square miles 2.59 kilometers squared km2 VOLUME ii VOLUME mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 Milliliters mL L liters 0.264 gallons gal gal gallons 3.785 Liters L m3 meters cubed 35.315 cubic feet ft3 ft3 cubic feet 0.028 meters cubed m3 m3 meters cubed 1.308 cubic yards yd3 yd3 cubic yards 0.765 meters cubed m3 MASS NOTE: Volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3. g grams 0.035 ounces oz MASS kg kilograms 2.205 pounds lb oz ounces 28.35 Grams g Mg megagrams 1.102 short tons (2000 lb) T lb pounds 0.454 Kilograms kg TEMPERATURE (exact) T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams Mg °C Celsius temperature 1.8 + 32 Fahrenheit °F TEMPERATURE (exact) °F Fahrenheit 5(F-32)/9 Celsius temperature °C temperature * SI is the symbol for the International System of Measurement (4-7-94 jbp) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). The technical advisory committee has provided helpful oversight: Edward Anderson, ODOT, Larry Christianson, ODOT, Rob Edgar, ODOT, Nick Fortey, FHWA, Mark Joerger, ODOT, Galen McGill, ODOT, David McKane, ODOT, and Nathaniel Price, FHWA. Chris Pangilinan was involved in the early stages of the project and Sirisha Kothuri assisted with compilation of the final report. The contents of this report reflect the views and opinions of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented here. DISCLAIMER This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Oregon Department of Transportation and the United States Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The State of Oregon and the United States Government assume no liability of its contents or use thereof. The contents of this report reflect the view of the authors who are solely responsible for the facts and accuracy of the material presented. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Oregon Department of Transportation or the United States Department of Transportation. The State of Oregon and the United States Government do not endorse products of manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the object of this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. iii iv COMPARISON OF IDENTIFICATION AND RANKING METHODOLOGIES FOR SPEED-RELATED CRASH LOCATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................1 1.1 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES................................................................................................2 1.2 ORGANIZATION OF REPORT.........................................................................................2 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW .....................................................................................................3 2.1 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPEED AND CRASHES...................................................3 2.1.1 Operating characteristics.............................................................................................3 2.1.2 Post-crash investigations.............................................................................................4 2.1.3 Crash severity..............................................................................................................6 2.2 SPEED REDUCTION TECHNIQUES ...............................................................................7 2.2.1 Geometric roadway modifications ..............................................................................7 2.2.1.1 Pavement and lane widths .......................................................................................7 2.2.1.2 Chicanes/chokers .....................................................................................................8 2.2.1.3 Traffic circles/roundabouts......................................................................................8 2.2.1.4 Speed humps.............................................................................................................8 2.2.1.5 Raised pavement markings/rumble strips ................................................................9 2.2.2 Traffic control devices.................................................................................................9 2.2.2.1 Static warning signs.................................................................................................9 2.2.2.2 Pavement markings................................................................................................10 2.2.3 Operations and ITS....................................................................................................12 2.2.3.1 Variable speed limit systems..................................................................................13
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Evaluation of Rumble Strip Design and Usage
    RESEARCH REPORT UKTRP-81-11 Evaluation of Rumble Strip Design and Usage by Jerry G. l'tgman Research Engineer Chief and Michael M. Barclay Fonnerly Research Engioeer Kentucky Transportation Research Program College of Englneeriog University of Kentucky Lexington, Kentucky in cooperation with Department of Transportation Commonwealth of Kentucky The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the UniversitY of Kentucky nor of the Kentucky Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. July 1981 Tec'hnicol Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 4. Title ond Subtitle 5. Report Date July 1981 Evaluation of Rumble Strip Design and Usage 6. Performing Organization Code 8. Performing Organization Report No. 7. Author(s) UKTRP-81-11 J. G. Pigman and M. M. Barclay 9. Performing Organization Nome and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAJS) Kentucky Transportation Research Program College of Engineering 11. Contract or Grant No. University of Kentucky KYP-75-75 Lexington, Kentucky 40506 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Kentucky Department of Transportation Final State Office Building Frankfort, Kentucky 40622 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes Study Title: Evaluation of Rumble Strip Design and Usage 16. Abstract The objective of this study was to investigate the following aspects of rumble strips: the optimum height and width of elements in a rumble strip pattern, spacing between them, the effect of grouping elements into sets, the effects of speed on design criteria, and driver reaction to the audible and physical stimuli produced by rumble strips.
    [Show full text]
  • Rumble Strip Basics for More Information About Rumble Strips in Delaware: You’Ve Probably Seen Them, Those Rows of Grooved Patterns Along the Edges of Some Roadways
    RUMBLE STRIP BASICS For more information about rumble strips in Delaware: You’ve probably seen them, those rows of grooved patterns along the edges of some roadways. You Go to safety.deldot.gov to find may have heard and felt them as well, if you have additional articles and supplemental info. ever driven over them. You are not likely to forget the sensation – the low-pitched buzzing sound as your vehicle’s tires cross the strips, and the awakening vibration that you feel. Rumble strips A proven, are an effective safety tool used to address head- effective way on and fixed-object crashes occurring on two-lane to improve rural roadways. Like Us on Facebook highway safety In the United States, rural roads account for /delawaredot and save lives. 60% of all fatal crashes; 90% of which occur on two-lane roads. Center line rumble strips alert drivers that they are drifting across the double Follow Us on Twitter yellow line into oncoming traffic. Edge line rumble @delawaredot strips warn drivers that their vehicle is drifting off the edge of the roadway onto a shoulder or unpaved area. Rumble strips are a cost-effective deterrent to roadway departure crashes, saving lives. deldot.gov 302-760-2080 RUMBLE STRIPS Noise Impacts Some concerns have been expressed that the noise generated by vehicles riding over rumble SAVE LIVES strips will become a disturbance to residents A roadway departure crash is a non-intersection crash which living nearby. The noise of a vehicle riding over occurs after a vehicle crosses an edge line or center line or rumble strips is comparable to that of a passing otherwise leaves the roadway.
    [Show full text]
  • Left-Turn and In-Lane Rumble Strip Treatments for Rural Intersections
    Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA/TX-04/0-4278-2 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date LEFT-TURN AND IN-LANE RUMBLE STRIP TREATMENTS September 2003 FOR RURAL INTERSECTIONS 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Kay Fitzpatrick, Marcus A. Brewer, and Angelia H. Parham Report 0-4278-2 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System 11. Contract or Grant No. College Station, Texas 77843-3135 Project No. 0-4278 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Research: Research and Technology Implementation Office September 2001-August 2003 P. O. Box 5080 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Austin Texas 78763-5080 15. Supplementary Notes Research performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Research Project Title: Safety Measures for Rural Intersections 16. Abstract Studies were conducted on left-turn behavior, left-turn lane guidelines, and in-lane rumble strips. Behavior on the major road at a T-intersection is influenced by the width and type of the shoulder. When a wide level shoulder was provided, a large percentage of the drivers, up to 95 percent, drove on the shoulder at speeds near the operating speed of the roadway. At the site where the shoulder was retrofitted using available materials and widened from 3 ft (0.9 m) to 10 ft (3.1 m) just prior to the intersection, only 19 to 29 percent of the drivers used the shoulder.
    [Show full text]
  • M-614-1 Rumble Strips
    GENERAL NOTES 1. RUMBLE STRIPS SHALL BE OMITTED AT TURN AND AUXILIARY LANES, 4. BEGIN RUMBLE STRIPS ON THE OUTSIDE EDGE OF THE TRAVEL LANE ROAD APPROACHES,RESIOENCES,250 FT. BEFORE ROAD INTERSECTIONS, EDGE LINE. ANO OTHER INTERRUPTIONS AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. 5. DD NOT INSTALL RUMBLE STRIPS ON SHOULDERS LESS THAN 6 FT . WIDE 2. RUMBLE STRIPS MAY BE INSTALLED BY GRINDING, ROLLING, DR FORMING WHEN GUARDRAIL IS PLACED ALONG THE EDGE OF THE SHOULDER. ON CONCRETE PAVEMENT, AND BY GRINDING DNL Y ON HMA PAVEMENT . RUMBLE STRIP WIDTH SHALL BE 12 IN. FDR GRIND-IN AND 18 IN. FDR 6. APPLY THE 60 FT. GAP PATTERN WHEN RUMBLE STRIPS (GRIND-IN) FORMED DR ROLLED. ARE INSTALLED IN CONCRETE PAVEMENT. 3. MINIMIZE THE DIST ANGE BETWEEN RUMBLE STRIP AND EDGE LINE ON CONCRETE PAVEMENTS WITH 14 FT . WIDE SLABS. TRAVEL -----i--------- LANE WIDTH OF SHOULDER VARIES 12" RUMBLE STRIP i------------------------------------r i---- ----- -1- -- (SEE NOTES 2 AND 4) TRANSVERSE SAW -9-CUT TRAFFIC----- PAVEMENT B (TYP .) C MARKING A TRAFFIC A 8 1 · · 1 EDGE OF TRAVEL LANE EDGE OF I TRAVEL LANE RUMBLE STRIP ! RUMBLE STRIP PATTERN RUMBLE STRIPS EXISTING ASPHALT DR CONCRETE PAVEMENT I ~......&.1.1.1,1..1.1.1.1,1,1,1~~----l,l,l,l,l,/~~~----i.+,l,l,I, 12" (SEE NOTE 2) TYPICAL SECTION C-C SHOULDER C SHOULDER 60'CYCLE FOR RUMBLE STRIP AND GAP INTERMITTENT RUMBLE STRIP CONTINUOUS RUMBLE STRIP TWO-LANE ROADWAY (HMA) TWO-LANE ROADWAY (CONCRETE) TYPICAL SECTION ' f---12" CENTERS---o-t--12" CENTERS -----J 60'CYCLE FDR RUMBLE STRIP AND GAP OF GRIND-IN RUMBLE STRIP TYPICAL SECTIONS
    [Show full text]
  • Safety Evaluation of Centerline Plus Shoulder Rumble Strips
    Safety Evaluation of Centerline Plus Shoulder Rumble Strips PUBLICATION NO. FHWA-HRT-15-048 JUNE 2015 Research, Development, and Technology Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center 6300 Georgetown Pike McLean, VA 22101-2296 FOREWORD The research documented in this report was conducted as part of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Evaluation of Low-Cost Safety Improvements Pooled Fund Study (ELCSI–PFS). The FHWA established this pooled fund study in 2005 to conduct research on the effectiveness of the safety improvements identified by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 500 Guides as part of the implementation of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Strategic Highway Safety Plan. The ELCSI-PFS studies provide a crash modification factor (CMF) and benefit-cost (B/C) economic analysis for each of the targeted safety strategies identified as priorities by the pooled fund member states. The combined application of centerline and shoulder rumble strips evaluated under this pooled fund study is intended to reduce the frequency of crashes by alerting drivers that they are about to leave the travelled lane. Geometric, traffic, and crash data were obtained at treated two-lane rural road locations in Kentucky, Missouri, and Pennsylvania. The results of this evaluation show that head-on, run-off-road, and sideswipe-opposite-direction crashes were significantly reduced, and application of centerline and shoulder rumble strips also has potential to reduce crash severity for all types of crashes. Monique R. Evans, P.E. Director, Office of Safety Research and Development Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Rumble Strips and Stripes: Guidelines for Application
    Guidelines for Application of Rumble Strips I. INTRODUCTION A. PURPOSE The intent of these guidelines is to establish SHA’s policy on the proper use and application of longitudinal rumble strips (shoulder and centerline), transverse rumble strips, and rumble stripes on Maryland’s highway system. These guidelines replace previous directives and guidelines regarding rumble strips and rumble stripes, such as MSHA’s Draft Directive and Guidance on the Use of Longitudinal Rumble Strips (date Revised May 14, 2002), and Use of Temporary Transverse Rumble Strips in Work Zones (SHAs Work Zone Safety Toolbox), and consolidates them with new information into a single document. All future revisions to this document that may impact bicyclists shall require the notification to both the SHA Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator within the Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering and the MDOT Director of Bicycle and Pedestrian Access within the Office of Planning and Capital Programming to gain their input on proposed changes. B. TARGET USERS State Highway Administration (SHA) staff/engineers, consultants, and local government agencies. II. DEFINITIONS Rumble Strips: Rumble strips are raised or grooved patterns on the roadway or shoulder that provide audible and vibratory warnings to drivers that their vehicles are leaving the driving lane or are approaching an unusual or unexpected traffic or road condition. Shoulder Rumble Strips: Shoulder rumble strips are rumble strips that are placed on or adjacent to the shoulder to alert drivers that they are leaving the roadway. Centerline Rumble Strips: Centerline rumble strips are rumble strips that are placed along the centerline of an undivided highway with pavement markings applied over top of the rumble strips to warn drivers that they are crossing the centerline.
    [Show full text]
  • Modot Practical Design Guidance
    Implementation Meeting Our Customers’ Needs Practical Design Missouri Department of Transportation Missouri Department of Transportation Contents Introduction Type of Facility Facility Selection 1 At-Grade Intersections 3 Interchanges 4 Typical Section Elements Lane Width 5 Shoulder Width 6 Median Width 7 Inslope Grade 8 Backslope Grade 9 Roadside Ditches 10 Horizontal & Vertical Alignment Horizontal Alignment 11 Vertical Alignment 12 Pavements Paved Shoulders 13 Bridge Approach Slabs 14 Pavement 15 Structures/Hydraulics Bridge Width 17 Bridge and Culvert Hydraulic Design 18 Seismic Design 20 Roadside Safety Rumble Strips 21 Guardrail 22 Incidental/Misc. Disposition of Routes 23 Bicycle Facilities 24 Pedestrian Facilities 25 Embankment Protection 26 Borrow and Excess Earthwork 27 Minimum Right of Way Width 28 Design Exception 29 Introduction Practical Design challenges traditional standards to develop These policies will form the foundation of a new guidance efficient solutions to solve today’s project needs. MoDOT’s document that will go into effect in the near future. This goal of Practical Design is to build “good” projects, not guidance document, in electronic format, will describe engi- “great” projects, to achieve a great system. Innovation and neering policies throughout MoDOT. It will be the “one-stop creativity are necessary for us to accomplish Practical Design. shop” for design, right of way, bridge, construction, traffic, This document was prepared to effectively begin implement- and maintenance activities. It will represent completion of ing Practical Design. It is purposely written to allow flexibility the next step in our Practical Design effort. for project specific locations. These new policies will guide the project decisions we all To accomplish Practical Design, we must properly define must make.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Centerline Rumble Strips and Shoulder Rumble Strips on All Roadway Departure Crashes in Louisiana Two-Lane Highways
    Louisiana Transportation Research Center Final Report 648 Impact of Centerline Rumble Strips and Shoulder Rumble Strips on all Roadway Departure Crashes in Louisiana Two-lane Highways by Xiaoduan Sun, Ph.D., P.E. M. Ashifur Rahman, Ph.D. Candidate University of Louisiana at Lafayette 4101 Gourrier Avenue | Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70808 (225) 767-9131 | (225) 767-9108 fax | www.ltrc.lsu.edu TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD PAGE 1. Title and Subtitle 5. Report No. Impact of Center Line Rumble Strips and Shoulder FHWA/LA.17/648 Rumble Strips on all Roadway Departure Crashes in 6. Report Date Louisiana Two-lane Highways March 2021 7. Performing Organization Code 2. Author(s) Xiaoduan Sun, M. Ashifur Rahman LTRC Project Number: 19-4SA 3. Performing Organization Name and Address SIO Number: DOTLT1000295 Department of Civil Engineering 8. Type of Report and Period Covered University of Louisiana at Lafayette Final Report Lafayette, LA 70504 07/2019–12/2020 9. No. of Pages 4. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development 105 P.O. Box 94245 Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9245 10. Supplementary Notes Conducted in Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration 11. Distribution Statement Unrestricted. This document is available through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 21161. 12. Key Words Roadway Departure; Rural Two-Lane; Urban Two-Lane; Centerline Rumble Strips; Shoulder Rumble Strips; Empirical Bayes 13. Abstract To prevent roadway departure crashes, rumble strips have been installed on Louisiana’s two-lane highways. This study investigated the impact of rumble strips on 1,593.09 miles of two-lane highways in Louisiana, on which centerline rumble strips (CLRS) and shoulder rumble strips (SRS) were installed between years 2010 and 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Shoulder Rumble Strips and Bicyclists
    FHWA-NJ-2002-020 SHOULDER RUMBLE STRIPS AND BICYCLISTS FINAL REPORT JUNE, 2007 Submitted by Dr. Janice Daniel National Center for Transportation and Industrial Productivity New Jersey Institute of Technology NJDOT Research Project Manager Karl Brodtman In cooperation with New Jersey Department of Transportation Bureau of Research and U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration DISCLAIMER STATEMENT The contents of this report reflects the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the New Jersey Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA–NJ–2002–020 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Shoulder Rumble Strips and Bicyclists June, 2007 6. Performing Organization Code NCTIP 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Janice Daniel, Ph.D. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. National Center for Transportation and Industrial Productivity New Jersey Institute of Technology 11. Contract or Grant No. University Heights Newark, NJ 07102-1982 NCTIP – 38 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered N.J. Department of Transportation U.S. Department of Transportation Final Report 1035 Parkway Avenue Federal Highway Administration 14. Sponsoring Agency Code P.O. Box 600 Washington, DC Trenton, NJ 08625-0600 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract This report provides a comprehensive review of existing research on the safety impacts of rumble strips to bicycles.
    [Show full text]
  • Rumble Strips
    Rumble Strips Problem: Roadway departures account for more than Solution: Rumble strips are proven, cost-effective way to half of all roadway fatalities help prevent roadway departure crashes Roadway departure fatalities, which include run-offthe- Shoulder rumble strips have proven to be very effective road (ROR) and head-on fatalities, are a serious problem for warning drivers that they are about to drive off the in the United States. In 2001, there were 23,205 roadway road. Many studies also show very high benefit-to-cost departure fatalities, accounting for 55 percent of all road- (B/C) ratios for shoulder rumble strips, making them way fatalities in the United States. That same year: among the most cost-effective safety features available. For example, Nevada found that with a B/C ratio ranging • 16,256 people died in ROR crashes (38.5 percent of all from more than 30:1 to more than 60:1, rumble strips are roadway fatalities). more cost effective than many other safety features, • Head-on crashes represented 15.7 percent (6,627 total) including guardrails, culvert-end treatments, and slope of all crashes. flattening. And a Maine Department of Transportation (DOT) survey of 50 State DOTs identified a B/C ratio of • There were 740,000 roadway departure injury crashes, 50:1 for milled ru m ble strips on rural interstates nationwide. accounting for 35 percent of all injury crashes. What are rumble strips and how do they improve Why are there so many roadway departure crashes? roadway safety? There are many contributing factors. Driver fatigue and R u m ble strips are raised or gr o oved patterns on the roadway d r owsiness can contribute to ROR crashes; a drowsy drive r shoulder that provide both an audible warning (rumbling can be as dangerous as a drunk driver.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Pavement Rumble Strips Our Mission
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk ProvidedResearch by University of Report Kentucky KTC-08-04/SPR319-06-1F KENTUCKY TRANSPORTATION CENTER EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PAVEMENT RUMBLE STRIPS OUR MISSION We provide services to the transportation community through research, technology transfer and education. We create and participate in partnerships to promote safe and effective transportation systems. OUR VALUES Teamwork Listening and communicating along with courtesy and respect for others. Honesty and Ethical Behavior Delivering the highest quality products and services. Continuous Improvement Inallthatwedo. Research Report KTC-08-04 / SPR319-06-1F EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PAVEMENT RUMBLE STRIPS (Final Report) By: Adam Kirk Transportation Research Engineer Kentucky Transportation Center College of Engineering University of Kentucky Lexington, Kentucky Accuracy of the information presented herein is the responsibility of the authors and the Kentucky Transportation Center. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The inclusion of manufacturer names and trade names is for identification purposes and is not to be considered an endorsement. January, 2008 1. Report Number 2. Government Accession 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. No. KTC-08- 04 / SPR319-06-1F 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Jan. 2008 Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Pavement Rumble Strips 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. A. Kirk KTC-08-04 / SPR319-06-1F 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. Kentucky Transportation Center College of Engineering University of Kentucky 11. Contract or Grant No. Lexington, Kentucky 40506-0281 SPR 319-06 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1600 Roadside Safety
    Chapter 1600 Roadside Safety 1600.01 General Exhibit 1600-1 Clear Zone Plan View 1600.02 Clear Zone Exhibit 1600-2 City and State Responsibilities and Jurisdictions 1600.03 Mitigation Guidance Exhibit 1600-3 Design Clear Zone Distance Table 1600.04 Medians Exhibit 1600-4 Recovery Area 1600.05 Other Roadside Safety Features Exhibit 1600-5 Design Clear Zone Examples for Ditch Sections 1600.06 Documentation Exhibit 1600-6 Guidelines for Embankment Barrier 1600.07 References Exhibit 1600-7 Mailbox Location and Turnout Design Exhibit 1600-8 Glare Screens 1600.01 General Roadside safety addresses the area outside the roadway and is an important component of total highway design. There are numerous reasons why a vehicle leaves the roadway, including driver error and behaviors. Regardless of the reason, a roadside design can reduce the severity and subsequent consequences of a roadside encroachment. From a crash reduction and severity perspective, the ideal highway has roadsides and median areas that are relatively flat and unobstructed by objects. It is also recognized that different facilities have different needs and considerations, and these issues are considered in any final design. It is not possible to provide a clear zone free of objects at all locations and under all circumstances. The engineer faces many tradeoffs in design decision-making such as balancing needs of the environment, right of way, and various modes of transportation. The fact that recommended design values related to the installation of barrier and other mitigation countermeasures are presented in this chapter, does not mean that WSDOT is required to modify or upgrade existing locations to meet current criteria.
    [Show full text]