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 ...................................................................................