HYPOTHETICAL ANALYSIS ON COST EFFECTIVENESS OF CENTERLINE RUMBLE STRIPS AS A CRASH COUNTERMEASURE Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this thesis is my own or was done in collaboration with my advisory committee. This thesis does not include proprietary or classified information. _________________________________ Asha Sharma Certificate of Approval: ______________________________________ Wesley C. Zech Assistant Professor Civil Engineering ______________________________________ Rod Turochy, Chair Assistant Professor Civil Engineering ______________________________________ Robert L. Vecellio Associate Professor Civil Engineering ______________________________________ Stephen L. McFarland Dean Graduate School HYPOTHETICAL ANALYSIS ON COST EFFECTIVENESS OF CENTERLINE RUMBLE STRIPS AS A CRASH COUNTERMEASURE Asha Sharma A Thesis Submitted To the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Auburn, Alabama May 11, 2006. iii HYPOTHETICAL ANALYSIS ON COST EFFECTIVENESS OF CENTERLINE RUMBLE STRIPS AS A CRASH COUNTERMEASURE Asha Sharma Permission is granted to Auburn University to make copies of this thesis at its discretion, upon the request of individuals or institutions and at their expense. The author reserves all publication rights. ____________________________ Signature of Author ____________________________ Date of Graduation THESIS ABSTRACT HYPOTHETICAL ANALYSIS ON COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF CENTERLINE RUMBLE STRIPS AS A CRASH COUNTERMEASURE Asha Sharma Master of Science, May 11, 2006 (B.E, B.M.S. College of Engineering, 2003) 124 Typed Pages Directed by Rod Turochy Rural roads are mostly undivided highways with high speed, two-way traffic. These factors coupled with inattentive driver behavior increase the risk of frontal and sideswipe collisions. Widening of roads and installation of barriers or medians are expensive improvement options. Centerline Rumble Strips (CLRS) are a cost- effective countermeasure for reducing head-on and sideswipe crash types by warning distracted drivers of lane departures that lead to an intrusion onto the adjoining lane through tactile stimuli. This study documents the state-of-the-practice pertaining to CLRS across the U.S. and attempts to establish a selection criterion for identifying locations that warrant CLRS installations. Using this selection criterion in the Critical Analysis Reporting Environment (CARE) software, candidate segments warranting CLRS installations in the State of Alabama were identified. Further, an economic analysis iv v was conducted to determine the benefit to cost ratio for the selected locations by attaching a monetary value to individual crash types, namely fatal, injury, and property damage only (PDO) and comparing them to the cost of a CLRS installation. A 14% reduction in the number of crashes was the expected tangible benefit of CLRS. This value was selected from the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS) study of 2003. According to this study, ?reliable? data from 7 states with a total 210 miles of CLRS was analyzed and it was concluded that sites treated with CLRS had an overall reduction of 14% in lane crossover crash types. Therefore, the number of crashes represented by the 14% were determined for every segment. The savings in crash cost due to the 14% crashes that would be prevented was the expected benefit of CLRS. The monetary amount incurred due to the installation of CLRS was the only cost that was associated with CLRS. Some other factors which may affect the cost of installation could be the cost of traffic control and speed at which the CLRS installation is performed. Cost of installation from the surveys was found to be $0.55/linear foot and was the only cost that was associated with CLRS in this report. The value of the benefit to cost ratio was found to be 16.5 which establishes CLRS as a cost-effective crash countermeasure. Finally, the segments were prioritized based on the crash rates experienced on the individual segments. vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author would like to express her deepest gratitude towards Dr. Rod Turochy for his motivation and guidance throughout the research work. The author would also like to thank Dr. Wesley Zech for his time and unwavering support, Dr. David B. Brown from the University of Alabama for his assistance in understanding the intricacies of the CARE software, Mr. Waymon Benifield from ALDOT for his contribution towards data collection and last but definitely not least, Dr. Robert Vecellio for imparting his knowledge through impeccable course instructions. A big thanks to all my teachers who have taught me to stay focused on my goals and my friends and family who believed in me. vii Style manual used: MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers (5th Edition) Computer software used: Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, Critical Analysis Reporting Environment (CARE), MINITAB. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................. x LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... xi Chapter 1: Introduction....................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Scope....................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Organization of Thesis............................................................................................ 3 Chapter 2: Literature Review.............................................................................................. 5 Chapter 3: State of Practice Surveys................................................................................. 19 Chapter 4: Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 32 4.1 Critical Analysis Reporting Environment (CARE) .............................................. 32 4.2 Segment Characteristics........................................................................................ 33 4.3 CARE Filter Development.................................................................................... 34 4.4 Identifying Candidate Segments........................................................................... 38 4.5 Candidate Segment Prioritization ......................................................................... 39 4.6 Results and Findings............................................................................................. 44 Chapter 5: Economic Analysis.......................................................................................... 47 5.1 Unit Crash Costs ................................................................................................... 47 ix 5.2 Benefit to Cost Ratio............................................................................................. 54 5.3 Results and Findings............................................................................................. 56 5.4 Sensitivity Analysis .............................................................................................. 57 Chapter 6: Conclusions..................................................................................................... 61 6.1 State-of-the-Practice ............................................................................................. 61 6.2 Crash Reporting and Crash Data Management..................................................... 62 6.3 Potential CLRS Benefits....................................................................................... 62 Chapter 7: Recommendations .......................................................................................... 64 7.1 Data Entry in Crash Reporting Forms .................................................................. 64 7.2 CLRS Installations................................................................................................ 64 7.3 Recommendations for Future Research................................................................ 65 References ........................................................................................................................ 67 Appendix A: Preliminary Survey Questionnaire ............................................................. 68 Appendix B: Results of the Preliminary Survey .............................................................. 74 Appendix C: Follow-Up Response Summary................................................................... 87 Appendix D: Filter Construction in CARE....................................................................... 90 Appendix E: List of Candidate Segments Warranting CLRS Installations ..................... 92 Appendix F: Crash Rates on Candidate Segments .......................................................... 98 Appendix G: Segment Prioritization Based on Crash Rates .......................................... 107 Appendix H: Benefit to Cost Ratio Calculations............................................................ 110 x LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Preliminary Survey Respondents..................................................................... 19 Table 3.2 Candidate States for the Follow?up Survey. .................................................... 28 Table 4.1 Traffic Data for Example Segment # 58........................................................... 44 Table 4.2 Segments Excluded From Analysis .................................................................. 46 Table 5.1 Unit Crash Costs for the Year 2000................................................................. 50 Table 5.2 Total Number of Crashes in the Year 2000 ...................................................... 51 Table 5.3 Representative Cost of Injury. ......................................................................... 52 Table 5.4 Final Unit Crash Cost per Crash Type............................................................. 54 Table 5.5 Cost Values for Sensitivity analysis ................................................................. 58 Table 5.6 Overall Crash Reductions Observed................................................................. 59 xi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 Dosimeter and Accelerometer .......................................................................... 2 Figure 2.2 Centerline Rumble Strips on State Highway 119 in Boulder......................... 10 Figure 2.3 Dimensions of CLRS installation, State Highway .......................................... 11 Figure 2.4 Centerline Rumble Strips, the Delaware experience....................................... 12 Figure 2.5 Driving simulator at the University of Massachusetts, .................................. 14 Figure 2.6 Countermeasures Installed on a Section of National Route 5 in Japan........... 16 Figure 3.1 CLRS Dimension Nomenclature.................................................................... 22 Figure 3.2 Sign developed by CDOT to alert the motorists. ........................................... 27 Figure 3.3 Sign developed by CDOT to alert the motorists. ........................................... 27 Figure 4.1 Impact Points on the Vehicle........................................................................... 36 Figure 4.2 Simplified version of the CARE filter............................................................ 37 Figure 4.3 Illustrations of Segment Terminologies in CARE.......................................... 41 Figure 4.4 Illustrations of Modified Segment Terminologies. ........................................ 42 Figure 4.5 Illustration of ALDOT?s 2004 Traffic Statistics Webpage ............................ 44 Figure 5.1 Cost Data for CLRS Installation..................................................................... 56 Figure 5.2 Sensitivity of Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) to CLRS Installation Cost ........... 59 Figure 5.3 Sensitivity of B/C ratio to Overall Crash Reductions .................................... 61 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Rural roads in the U.S. account for almost 40% of all motor vehicle travel and carry 20% of the national traffic. However, rural roads also account for 60% of all fatal crashes, out of which 90% occur specifically on two-lane rural roads. The high percentage of crashes may be explained by the fact that rural roads are high speed routes, generally two-lane and without any physical barrier to separate the two-way traffic. Widening of roads and constructing physical barriers are possible crash countermeasures, but these are expensive options. With rural roads accounting for almost 77% of the nation?s highways, such an undertaking will come at a premium. Centerline Rumble Strips (CLRS) have been steadily emerging as a crash countermeasure targeted towards reducing lane departure crossover type crashes. CLRS have the potential to significantly reduce the occurrence of these crash types, improving the status of highway safety nationwide. In the U.S. some states have installed CLRS while several other states are actively researching their effectiveness. 2 1.2 Objectives The objectives of this report are: ? To explore the current state-of-the-practice of regarding the use of CLRS. ? Establish a selection criteria that defines the locations or segments that warrant CLRS. ? Identify the sections in the State of Alabama that warrant CLRS. ? Conduct an economic analysis to determine the expected benefits of installing of CLRS in these selected locations. This report does not focus on design procedures associated with CLRS, such as, specifying the dimensions and installation techniques. However, the material developed through this study may be a useful reference for practitioners when deciding if CLRS are an appropriate crash countermeasure. 1.3 Scope This study is targeted towards estimating the potential, tangible benefits of CLRS in terms of crash cost savings and the actual number of crashes prevented by their installation on two-lane rural routes in Alabama. An initial and a follow-up survey explored the state-of-the-practice of CLRS across the U.S. Based on the responses obtained, a set of selection criteria identifying locations for CLRS deployment was established. This set of criteria was queried in the 3 Critical Analysis Reporting Environment (CARE) software and a list of candidate segments for CLRS installation was extracted from the crash database. The potential tangible benefits of CLRS installations on the suggested sections of the Alabama routes were determined through an economic analysis. Additionally, the economic analysis also attempted to establish unit crash costs for fatal, injury, and property damage only (PDO) crash types. The results of this study are specific to the state of Alabama. However, the criteria established and the methodology used for the selection of segment locations that warrant the installation of CLRS may be used by other states working towards expanding their existing CLRS projects or by states contemplating the installation of CLRS from scratch. 1.4 Organization of Thesis This thesis has been organized into seven chapters, Chapter 1 being the current chapter. Chapter 2 is the literature review to summarizing the state-of-the-practice in reference to CLRS installations in various states across the U.S. The information obtained from the literature review also formed the basis for the preliminary and follow- up surveys conducted for further data collection which have been briefly discussed and summarized in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 describes the data analysis procedures developed to identify the candidate segments for CLRS installations in Alabama. This chapter also has a brief discussion on the CARE software used for data collection and its application in this thesis. The economic analysis conducted to evaluate the potential tangible benefits of 4 CLRS in comparison to the costs associated with them, which is the cost of installation in this report, and the results of benefit to cost analysis have been described in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 contains the conclusions from this study followed by recommendations based on the findings from this research and recommendations for future research on CLRS in Chapter 7. 5 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Shoulder rumble strips (SRS) have been used as a crash countermeasure for a long time, both in urban and rural settings. SRS are an inexpensive and efficient method to alert inattentive drivers, drifting off the shoulder of the roadway, through auditory and vibratory stimuli, so proper corrective action can be taken by the driver. In urban areas where opposing direction traffic is separated by either a concrete or grass median, the chances of head-on collisions and sideswipes are low, even during nighttime driving. However, in a rural setting where the roads are two-laned, narrower and with a lack of non-traversable physical traffic control measures such as wide medians or physical barriers, to separate opposing direction traffic, the possibility of head-on collisions and sideswipes is much higher. The fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles of travel on rural roads is 2.3 and urban is 1.0 (Persaud et al., 2003) Centerline Rumble Strips (CLRS) are similar to SRS in their appearance but are installed in the center of the road to separate two-way traffic. SRS were first installed on the New Jersey Garden State Parkway in 1955 (Noyce et al., 2004) and because they have proven to be successful in reducing run-off-the-road (ROR) crashes by almost 60% (Russel et al., 2003) CLRS have also been in active consideration. CLRS are 6 installed along the centerline of undivided highways to warn drivers that they are drifting out of their designated lane of travel. Currently, 20 Department of Transportation (DOTs) out of a total of 50 DOTs across the U.S. and some provinces in Canada are actively using CLRS. Research indicates an overall decrease of approximately 21% in head-on and opposing direction sideswipes due to lane crossovers in rural areas when CLRS was present (Russell et al., 2005). The remaining majority seems to have concerns regarding CLRS such as: i) The noise generated by them especially in residential areas, ii) Pavement deterioration iii) Collection of water in the grooves and then freezing during winter months, iv) Collection of debris in the grooves in arid regions, and v) Safety of motorcycle and bicycle riders. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), CLRS data examined for 210 miles of two-lane roads in the seven states of California, Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon and Washington revealed 15% reduction in injuries, 21% decrease in head-on and sideswipe crashes, and a 14% reduction overall in crash rate (Persaud et al., 2003). In the fall of 1999, Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) conducted a small scale phone survey to collect and analyze information regarding the CLRS configuration in use and concerns, if any, associated with them (Russell et al., 2003). The survey included the states of Colorado, Arizona, California, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Washington; and inquired about basic CLRS information. It formed the basis of the 7 next survey conducted by KDOT, focusing on the current practices regarding CLRS, across all 50 states in the U.S. and all Canadian provinces. The responses received for the latter survey indicated that California, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Connecticut, and Alberta had CLRS installed at various locations. The survey response from Alberta, Canada stated that a recent synthesis report revealed that residents were complaining of noise generated due to vehicles traversing over CLRS. Therefore, testing was conducted on various CLRS designs, varying only the groove depth, to determine the tactile responses due to a vehicle traversing over the CLRS installation. Test vehicles for this study included tractor-trailers, pick-up trucks, and motorcycles. Based on the results, recommendations were made on the CLRS configuration considered most suitable for implementation in Canada. The report concluded that, based on the testing, the most suitable shape would be rounded with 300 mm spacing between the strips. A groove depth of 8 mm +/- 2 mm, strip width of 300 mm with painted lines and a length of 175 mm +/- 25 mm would provide the necessary stimuli without excessive external noise. Another survey conducted by KDOT in 2000, regarding the construction and placing of CLRS and associated noise generated, revealed issues associated with the deployment of CLRS (Russell et al., 2003). These issues included: i) CLRS can cause confusion if continued through ?Passing Zones?, ii) Inattentive drivers may overcorrect (towards left ) into the travel lane and lose control, and iii) Others may not have an understanding of the auditory and vibratory stimuli possibly due to the lack of awareness of CLRS and may steer off into the adjoining opposing-direction traffic lane. Therefore, KDOT decided to test 12 patterns which were suitable candidates for CLRS. In May 2000, KDOT went ahead and milled in the test patterns on I-135, over ? mile stretches, separated by 200 ft gaps. They tested three sets: (i) continuous 12 inch center to center (c/c), (ii)continuous 24 inch c/c, and iii) alternating 12 inch and 24 inch c/c. Each of these patterns consisted of four different widths of 5 inches, 8 inches, 12 inches and 16 inches respectively. A depth of ? inch was maintained across all configurations. Seven vehicle types were used at 60 mph which is the posted speed limit in Kansas. Background noise was eliminated as much as possible. Interior noise levels and steering wheel vibrations were collected through Quest Technologies Q-300 Noise Dosimeter and External Microphone and the MicroDAQ SA-600 3-Axis Accelerometer, respectively as shown in Figure 2.1. Figure 2.1 Dosimeter and Accelerometer (Russell et al. 2003). 8 9 The Dosimeter collects data at the sampling rate of 32 samples per second and displays the highest decibel reading taken during any one-second period. It was found that the maximum audible response was between 80 dB and 94 dB at 60 mph by the continuous 12 inch c/c spacing followed by alternating 12 inch and 24 inch c/c spacing and the continuous 24 inch c/c. Overall, it was theorized that patterns with higher densities of indentations produced higher average decibel levels (Russell et al., 2003). Steering wheel vibrations were collected through an accelerometer, taped to steering, at 4 readings per second. Drivers were instructed to maintain a minimum but safe contact with the steering wheel. This time however, the alternating 12 inch and 24 inch c/c pattern produced maximum vibratory stimuli followed by the continuous 12 inch c/c and continuous 24 inch c/c. Based on the results of the testing the following two configurations were chosen for further testing on the highway in summer 2003, the results of which have yet to be announced. i.) The 12 inch c/c continuous, L = 12 inches, and ii.) The alternating 12 inch & 24 inch, L = 12 inches. In the above stated configurations, ?L? represents the length of the CLRS perpendicular to the centerline of the roadway. In August 2001, Colorado DOT (CDOT) published a report on 17 miles of CLRS on the winding, mountainous, 2-lane State Highway 119 with limited sight distance (Outcalt, 2001). The solid double yellow striping was the only traffic control device being used on the chosen segment of the highway. The CLRS were milled through ?No Passing? zones only and discontinued at intersections. The cost of the CLRS installation was approximately $0.87/ linear foot, which included all traffic controls, replacement of pavement marker materials and milling costs. Data acquisition was carried out for the duration of 44 months before and after the installation of CLRS. This report published by CDOT noted that the number of crashes per million vehicles for head-on type reduced by 34% and sideswipes by 36.5%. The 18% increase in AADT when included made the ?reductions become even more impressive? (Outcalt, 2001). Figure 2.2 Centerline Rumble Strips on State Highway 119 in Boulder Canyon, Colorado, (Report CDOT-DTD-R-2001-8). 10 Figure 2.3 Dimensions of CLRS installation, State Highway 119, Boulder Canyon, Colorado There were concerns regarding the safety of motorcycle and bicycle riders in mountainous regions with no shoulders. Findings indicated that dirt and sand that accumulates in the grooves gets damp during cool weather but as the pavement surface begins to dry up, so does the sand, such that by the time pavement surface is completely dry, there is no water in the grooves. Also, the passing traffic causes air movement that assists the quick drying of grooves. The auditory and vibratory signals remained unaffected by the build-up in grooves. Though no deterioration of asphalt was noted, it was observed that the pavement marking paint tends to wear out faster, due to the traffic traversing over the CLRS. Studies were conducted for a 2.9 mile section of US 301 with CLRS, in Delaware as shown in Figure 2.4 (DelDOT, 2001). 11 Figure 2.4 Centerline Rumble Strips, the Delaware experience (DelDOT,2001) This was a before-and-after study which compared the average yearly crashes in occurring in a three year period before installation to the average yearly crashes occurring in the seven years duration, post-installation. The study revealed that though the percentage of injury and PDO crashes increased by 4% and 13% respectively, there was a 95% decrease in head-on collisions, 60% decrease on cross-overs, along with a 4% increase in AADT. No fatal crashes were reported during the seven year after-installation period. The cost of installation ranged from $0.20/ linear foot to $0.60/ linear foot, depending on the miles of installation (i.e. more miles resulted in lowered installation costs). An overall benefit to cost (B/C) ratio was calculated to be 110 (Delaware DOT, 2001). The values obtained for crash reduction in this case are much higher than reductions reported from other states with CLRS installation. These observations may be 12 13 attributed to the fact that this was the only section with CLRS in Delaware and may not be reflective of the typical crash reductions observed due to installation of CLRS. The California DOT tested the effects of CLRS in no passing zones and, after a review of three years of before and after data, found that crashes decreased by 11% and fatalities decreased by a staggering 71%(Russell et al., 2005). As none of the previous studies and evaluations had documented driver behavior and reactions towards CLRS, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst developed simulations models to mimic real conditions and observed the distracted motorist?s reflexive reaction to CLRS under varying environmental scenarios (Noyce et al., 2004). Both male and female drivers were selected across a range of age groups. Different scenarios that the drivers encountered included (i)the presence of CLRS, (ii) presence of SRS, (iii) passing zones, (iv) no passing zones, (v) curves and (vi) straight stretches. Drivers were distracted by being asked to read billboards and look out for the letter ?V?. The roadway was shifted in the simulator to make sure that the rumble strip, CLRS or SRS, was encountered. A combination of foggy, nighttime environment and driver distraction created an extreme situation where the driver?s reflexive reactions would be evaluated and hence the final results obtained would be reflective of the actual driver reactions on the road. After analyzing the data, the authors determined that drivers took about 125 milliseconds more to return back into the lane with the presence of CLRS in comparison with the absence of CLRS. They also noted that the return time value decreased as encounters with CLRS increased. Drivers, on average, took 250 milliseconds more to return into the travel lane after running over SRS as compared to CLRS. Results pertaining to the driver?s direction correction, once the CLRS were traversed, indicated that 28% corrected left initially, when encountering CLRS for the first time. Also, 27% corrected left instead of correcting right, 37% corrected left (in curve and in no passing zones, 27% corrected left in curve and in passing zones and between 20 and 23% corrected left on straight segments of the roadway. No opposing traffic was used in any of the simulations. Gender differences were not significant. However, no right direction corrections were made by the drivers traversing SRS. This could mean that drivers are more comfortable with SRS due to previous experiences (Noyce et al., 2004). Figure 2.5 Driving simulator at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst (Noyce et al., 2004). A before-and-after observational study was conducted in Pennsylvania documented the effect of CLRS the lateral placement of vehicle (Mahoney et al., 2004). The study defines lateral placement as the ?location of vehicle?s longitudinal axis relative to a longitudinal road reference system?. For this study, the longitudinal axis was assumed to run through the centriod of the vehicle and the longitudinal road reference 14 15 system was the centerline of the road. Data was collected at four two-lane rural sites in two distinct phases, each separated by a period of about four months. CLRS was installed at two locations with 11 foot and 12 foot lanes, after the first phase of data collection was complete. These were called the ?treatment? sites. Each treatment site had a corresponding ?comparison? site for purposes of before and after data comparison, to identify the influence of factors other than the CLRS, if any, on lateral vehicle placement and speeds of the vehicles. The study concluded that CLRS affected both the mean and variance of lateral placement of vehicle. The shift in vehicle placement was 7.5 inches to the right of the centered vehicle path for 12 foot lane and 3 inches for the 11 foot lane after CLRS were installed; as compared to 2 inches and 6 inches to the right of the centred vehicle path before the CLRS installation. The variance in lateral vehicle placement was also found to decrease significantly post CLRS installation. The study also analysed speed data and no conclusion was drawn between the speeds and presence of CLRS. A study was recently completed in Japan which worked towards establishing the monetary and safety benefits of CLRS by comparing it with other safety measures being used to prevent head-on collisions (Hirasawa et al., 2005). The development of optimal CLRS configuration and assessment of the safety benefits on the rural two-lane national highways of Hokkaido, which were experiencing fatal head-on collisions, was done through field testing of various configurations of CLRS. This study was conducted to arrive at a configuration that would provide sufficient vibratory and auditory responses in an effort to reduce head-on crash occurrence. Three distinct patterns of groove depths 9 mm, 12 mm and 15 mm were tested at 40, 60, 80 and 100 km/h. It was observed that pattern 3 with 15 mm groove depth provided the highest auditory and vibratory stimuli. Also, all three patterns produced sound levels which were 15 dB higher than the sound generated inside the vehicle on pavements without such warning facilities. Subjective evaluations of the danger felt by the motorists, including bicycle and motorcycle riders was also used in determining the optimal configuration. Observations were made to check the effect of CLRS on driving speeds of vehicles compared to other safety improvements which were the median strip, center poles and chatter bars or traffic bars as shown in . Figure 2.6 Countermeasures Installed on a Section of National Route 5 in Japan (Hirasawa et al., 2005) These four improvements were installed over a single stretch, in succession, for a total length of 4.6 km. The differences in the speeds of the vehicles in one direction only, were noted and it was found that they were within 2km/hr of each other. Hence it was assumed that the different safety measures did not affect driving speeds of the vehicles. 16 17 Sound and vibration levels were also measured on winter roads. With slushy road surfaces and CLRS not visible, the sound levels were 75 to 80 dB as compared to 60 to 65 dB in the absence of CLRS and vibrations were 95 to 105 dB when traversing the strips as compared to 90 to 95 dB on smooth pavement. Therefore, the stimuli were found adequate on compacted-snow surface and slushy road surface. A reduction of 55.2% was noted after the CLRS were installed. The study recommended the 12 mm groove depth with 150 mm longitudinal width and 350 mm transverse width. As of March 31, 2005, 111.9 km of CLRS have been installed at 61 locations on Japan?s National Route 5. From the various studies, the reduction, observed and documented across all crash types, after CLRS had been installed in 20 out of 50 states in the U.S. is substantial evidence regarding the credibility of CLRS. Findings of the literature review indicate that research is currently in progress across the U.S. and Canada to arrive at a configuration for CLRS which provides optimal auditory and vibratory stimuli; however, the CLRS dimensions are still not standardized. Studies in Japan noted the optimal CLRS configuration based on combined results of field testing driver inputs. Overall, the results from the various studies conducted, look positive for the potential of CLRS in crash reduction and cost effectiveness at the same time. Though the transportation agencies across the U.S. do have concerns regarding settling of debris, pooling of water in grooves, pavement deterioration, noise generated by vehicles traversing the CLRS and safety of motorcycle and bicycle riders; the reports from field evaluations of CDOT and Japan found some of these concerns invalid. A survey was therefore conducted by the Auburn University?s Highway Research 18 Center in early 2005 which attempted to explore the current state of practice and collect information on CLRS with regard to concerns, challenges, and costs associated with CLRS. 19 CHAPTER 3 STATE OF PRACTICE SURVEYS 3.1 Preliminary Survey A preliminary survey for this study was conducted aimed at obtaining information regarding the state-of-the-practice of CLRS across the U.S., including an estimate of cost of installation and concerns associated with CLRS. The preliminary questionnaire consisted of sixteen questions sent out to all fifty states in December 2004. A response rate of 52% (i.e. 26 out of 50) which included the states as listed below in Table 3.1. The complete questionnaire is available in Appendix A. Table 3.1 Preliminary Survey Respondents. Arizona Arkansas Colorado Florida Hawaii Idaho Iowa Louisiana Maine Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Jersey Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania South Carolina Texas Vermont Virginia Washington Wisconsin Wyoming The complete results of the survey have been tabulated in Appendices B1 through B3. The responses are briefly summarized as follows. 20 1) Does your state use the Centerline Rumble Strips? 26 out of 50 states responded to the survey (52%). Out of these 26 states, 13 were using CLRS on actual highway settings (50%). Florida, Missouri and South Carolina had project installation sites for CLRS installed for research purposes and not subjected to the action of traffic (12%) and 10 were not using them at all (38%). In a unique installation, Oklahoma reported that the only application they had of CLRS was on a five lane highway, along the margins of the two-way left turn lane, when speeds exceeded the posted speed limit of 45 mph. 2) What criteria were used to determine the installation location? 15 out of 26 states indicated that candidate locations for CLRS installations would be those with higher than average crash history of head-on, sideswipe, and crossover crash types. All of these 15 states have CLRS installed on actual highway settings (58%). Of the remaining 11, 9 states were not using CLRS and two had experimental project installations with evaluations in progress to check the effectiveness of CLRS. 3) What pattern is being currently used? Rolled/Milled/Corrugated/Raised? Fourteen out of the twenty six states that responded to the survey, experimental installations included, are actively using the milled method of construction (54%). Colorado and New Jersey indicated using both rolled and milled. Virginia had used the rolled pattern for 1.5 miles for their pilot site for tested in 1999 but had discontinued its future usage. Florida reported having an experimental project installation using the raised type CLRS. 4) Please provide the detailed dimensions currently being used for Centerline Rumble Strips OR enclose a copy of the standards / specifications used, with the survey response. Out of the 26 states that responded to the survey, the continuous 12 inch c/c pattern is in use in 11 states (43%), followed by continuous 24 inch c/c in four states (15%). The configuration of transverse width of 12 inches and longitudinal width of 7 inches is in use on actual highway settings or experimental projects in five states (19%). The configuration of transverse width of 16 inches and longitudinal width of 7 inches is in use on actual highway settings or experimental projects in 7 states (27%). However, by itself, 12 inches is in use in 9 states (35%) and 16 inches in 8 states (38%). 14 out of 26 states use 7 inch as the longitudinal width (54%). 13 out of 26 states were using minimum groove depth of ? inch (50%). Figure 3.1 CLRS Dimension Nomenclature 21 22 5) Does the design configuration vary across the state? (e.g. Topography, rural / urban)? This question was aimed at getting an estimate on whether location of installation makes an impact on the design of CLRS. Minnesota, Washington and Pennsylvania reported that CLRS design was varied based on location of installation. Configurations remained unchanged in the remaining states. 6) How many miles have been installed and when did the installation commence? The lengths were reported to vary from a small test section of approximately 5 miles in Wyoming to 1500 miles of CLRS spread out over 250 locations across the state of Pennsylvania. The date of commencement of the first CLRS installation in each state was also requested, to get an estimate of how long CLRS have been in use across the states. The oldest installation, as noted from survey results, was in 1996 in Washington State and the latest in spring 2005. Evidently, CLRS have been in use for at least a decade. 7) Is the cost of installation of Centerline Rumble Strip included along with other contract bid items or is it a separate item? What is the typical cost or range of costs? Whether CLRS are included as a separate bid item in construction contracts or along with other items is a decision of the state. 9 states listed the installation of CLRS as a separate bid item. The cost was typically around $0.20/linear foot. However, there were states where the cost of installation was as high as $1.50/ linear foot. The highest unit cost for the installation of CLRS was in the state of New Jersey at $4.50/ linear foot. 23 8) What are the evaluation criteria for effectiveness of Centerline Rumble Strips? (Safety /Cost /Road Geometrics /Weather /Driver inputs / Other /Evaluation underway/ No evaluation done)? The 8 options provided to describe the effectiveness of CLRS installations are explained as follows: i) Safety: Crash reduction following the installation of CLRS. ii) Cost: Savings in crash costs following the installation of CLRS. iii) Road Geometrics: If CLRS were installed in specific locations, such as no passing zones or curves. iv) Weather: If weather in the region had any influence on the performance of CLRS. v) Driver Inputs: These were direct feedbacks from the motorists. vi) Other: If the sate had a method of evaluation other than those listed. vii) Evaluation Underway: State conduction research or field evaluation of CLRS viii) No Evaluation done: No evaluation of any sort has been done till date, to evaluate the effectiveness of CLRS. In 8 out of 26 states that responded, the primary evaluation criterion was safety (31%), followed by costs in six states (23 %). Michigan reported to relying on driver inputs and influence of weather for evaluation. Four states reported having no evaluation carried out though all four of these were actively using CLRS as seen in Appendix B3. 24 9) Have the auditory and vibratory levels produced by the chosen pattern been measured? For CLRS design to be effective, it must be able to generate noticeable vibratory and auditory stimuli, louder than the background noise in a vehicle and higher than vibrations due to the engine of the vehicle. At the time of this survey, from the data collected, Colorado, Pennsylvania and Michigan were the only states that reported having documented the auditory and vibratory response data. However, this data was for SRS. CDOT had measured the auditory and vibratory responses of 14 patterns tested with four different vehicle classes at the 55 mph and 65 mph. Sound measurements were conducted on a smooth pavement to observe the changes in sound level when vehicles traverse over CLRS. The auditory responses varied from about 60 dB to 80 dB. CDOT also tested these 14 patterns for the development of bicycle friendly SRS at speeds of 5, 10, 15 and 20 mph. 29 bicyclists evaluated and compared the SRS sections according to comfort and maneuverability. Vibration levels were measured with an accelerometer mounted on the bicycle. It was concluded that motor vehicles and bicycles have very different requirement with respect to the rumble strip configurations. CDOT recommended using the standard 12 inch continuous pattern with a 12 inches transverse width, 7 inches longitudinal width at a groove depth of 3/8 inch (? 1/8 inch). They found that this depth provided a relatively high level of sound and vibration in motor vehicles and the bicycles could safely traverse across this groove depth without any loss of control. Field evaluations by Pennsylvania DOT revealed that highest average auditory response of 83 dB was recorded at 65 mph. None of the other states reported having measured the auditory or vibratory stimuli. 25 10) What were the challenges and/or concerns faced during installation (if any)? Challenges and concerns regarding CLRS varied widely across the states, from difficulties in traffic control to maintaining the required uniform depth of CLRS while milling. Complete results have been tabulated in Appendix B1. 11) Have any warrants, policies, or guidelines been created which are directed towards the installation of the Centerline Rumble Strip? Colorado, Pennsylvania and Oregon reported having active guidelines for CLRS, at the time of this survey. Missouri, Washington State and Virginia were working towards developing guidelines or policies, while the remaining 20 states did not have any because they either had only experimental installations or were not using CLRS. 12) Were any special signs developed to alert the motorists about the presence of the Centerline Rumble Strips ahead-on the road? If yes, please describe in detail or include figure. Colorado, Idaho and Michigan reported that they had developed signs to alert the motorists about the CLRS installations. Idaho placed a portable message sign trailer at the two ends of each installation indicating ?NEW CENTERLINE RUMBLE STRIPS NEXT XX MILES?. Michigan DOT installed a yellow warning sign stating ?CENTERLINE RUMBLE STRIPS AHEAD?. Colorado DOT installed the yellow warning signs, shown in Figure 3.2 and Figure 3.3. Figure 3.2 Sign developed by CDOT to alert the motorists. Figure 3.3 Sign developed by CDOT to alert the motorists. 13) How were the general public, made aware of this ?new? installation? Out of the 26 states, 6 actively made the public aware of the ?new? installation though public meetings, media services and public service announcements (23%). Two states let motorists ?discover? the CLRS by themselves; seven states reported that no additional attempt was made to make the general public aware of the presence of the newly installed CLRS. No additional information was provided regarding initial impact of CLRS. 26 27 14) Did regional factors have any effect on performance of Centerline Rumble Strips? (e.g. Snow in the northern regions, debris buildup in the grooves in dry, arid regions or any other related factors). Though the installation locations of CLRS vary from mountainous terrain to deserts and urban to rural, nine states (out of the 26 that responded) which were actively using CLRS, as reported in the survey responses, did not find any influence of regional factors on CLRS (35%). 15) Was any special consideration given to bicycle or motorcycle traffic during the design or selection of installation locations? Apart from Wyoming, none of the states have expressed concern for bicycle and motorcycle riders. Maine had noted concern for motorcycles. Wisconsin and Missouri are reviewing the effect of CLRS on bicyclists and motorcyclists. However, bicycle riders are not of particular concern presently. 16) Any additional comments? This question made room for any additional comments from the DOT responding to the survey about CLRS. Comments from the state DOTs have been included in Appendix B1. The complete results of the preliminary questionnaire are as tabulated in Appendices B1, B2 and B3. The major concerns across the states, as noted through this 28 survey, are associated with noise, maintenance, accumulation of debris in grooves, pavement deterioration and concern for motorcyclists. 3.2 Follow-up Survey Amongst the states that responded to the preliminary survey, since only some of the states are actively using CLRS in a real highway setting, the next step was to focus on those states and obtain more specific and detailed information pertaining to CLRS. Based on the responses received from the preliminary survey, 13 states which reported having active CLRS installations (i.e. installations on actual highway settings were chosen for the follow-up survey). However three states could not be reached. The ten states contacted to further information on CLRS installations are as tabulated in Table 3.2 The states were contacted between March and early May 2005. Table 3.2 Candidate States for the Follow?up Survey. Arkansas Colorado Michigan Minnesota Nebraska Oregon Pennsylvania Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming For the follow-up survey the person in charge of CLRS installations for the respective state was directly contacted. The complete results of the survey have been included in Appendix C. Arkansas DOT could not be reached via e-mail or telephone. The responses to the questions for the follow-up survey are briefly summarized as follows. 1) How were the dimensions for CLRS decided upon? 29 Since design configurations of CLRS are analogous to SRS, it would be informative to know the methods that the sates were adopting to arrive at the patterns and dimensions being used. At the time of survey, Pennsylvania was the only state that reported to having done extensive research to come up with their design. No response was obtained from Arkansas, Michigan and Wyoming. The remaining seven states have dimensions based off SRS. 2) According to the state?s response, no values for auditory/vibratory stimuli have been provided. If no tests have been conducted, how was the depth of the grooves decided? Though this question was covered in the preliminary survey, none of the respondents, except Colorado, reported to having measured the tactile stimuli, though, for bicycle friendly SRS. Of the ten states that were contacted, Colorado, Minnesota, Nebraska and Wisconsin reported that auditory and vibratory responses of the groove depth of SRS were considered acceptable. Pennsylvania and Virginia reported that the CLRS groove depth in use was determined through research and field testing of various groove depths and measuring the tactile stimuli responses. 3) What audible levels were considered ?noise? by the residents? During the preliminary survey, several states had expressed concern for noise generated by vehicles traversing over the CLRS. Colorado, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Wyoming responded that noise was not a concern. Minnesota had guidelines to stay within noise levels in residential areas. Minnesota was one of the three states that 30 reported having the design configuration vary across the state as response for question number five in the preliminary survey. Nebraska reported ?any noise at all? to be noise but did not report following any guidelines for installations to mitigate the noise. None of the states provided an exact value for sound levels considered ?noise?. 4) How was the depth of the groove measured while milling? Achieving the correct groove depth is essential for providing the right amount of tactile stimuli. This question was targeted towards exploring the methods applied to make sure the groove depth is milled to the designed groove depth. These methods included performing manual checks at regular length intervals or at the end of the day and using electronic devices installed on-board the milling equipment which permit a +/- 5% margin of error during milling operations. Also, from the preliminary survey responses, it was observed that more states had provided a margin of error for groove depth than the other two dimensions. For example, the design for CLRS groove depth in New Jersey is ? inch +/- 1/8 inch as compared to only one state having tolerance for the longitudinal and transverse width. This means that the grooves are required to be milled to ? inch depth and the +/- 1/8 inch in the design accounts for variations in groove depth, that are likely to occur when the actual milling of CLRS takes place. None of the states, with the exception of Wisconsin, reported having any margin for the dimensions of transverse or longitudinal width. The complete results have been tabulated in Appendix C. 5) Do the installation locations cover both rural and urban? 31 In response to this question, 6 of the 10 states that participated in the follow-up survey reported using the CLRS in rural areas (60%). Out of these six states, three had CLRS installed strictly in the rural area and three sates reported having CLRS installed mostly in rural areas. Out of the remaining four, one (i.e. Virginia) had CLRS installed in both rural and urban settings. No responses could be obtained from three states. The findings of the two surveys helped in identifying the variables that must be included in the selection criterion when identifying locations that warrant CLRS installation (e.g. locations with high crossover crash history, two lane and high speed routes) and also those factors whose inclusion is optional in the selection criterion were also noted (e.g. presence of passing zones, no passing zones, rural, urban and presence of traffic control devices). The survey was helpful in collecting the cost information for CLRS installations. Concerns and challenges associated with CLRS maintenance and installations were also noted though the surveys (e.g. build-up of debris in the grooves, pavement deterioration, wearing off of the pavement marker material and safety of motorcycle and bicycle riders). However, further investigation on these concerns is beyond the scope of this report. An application of CLRS, not found previously in any of the reports in literature review were reported by the state of Okalahoma, which uses only uses CLRS on the margins of the two-way left turn lane on five lane highways, where speeds exceed 45 mph. 32 CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS Based on the survey responses, the criteria defining the locations in Alabama warranting the installation of CLRS were identified. Using the Critical Analysis Reporting Environment (CARE) software, a filter was constructed to incorporate the criteria with some additions and modifications to them, to retrieve the required dataset, from the CARE crash database. A ?filter? represents a specific set of attributes / criteria against which all data are compared and only matching data are retrieved from the crash database. These filters can be those predefined in the software or created by the user to retrieve specific datasets. CARE software provides 250 variables to choose from to construct a user-defined filter. A variable is defined as ?a discrete attribute of the events or objects in a CARE database? (CARE User Manual, version 7.5.9). The result was a list of 73 segments. The crash rate for each segment was calculated and the list was prioritized based on the crash rates experienced on individual segments. 4.1 Critical Analysis Reporting Environment (CARE) The CARE software was developed by a research group in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Alabama. First developed in 1982, CARE originally stood for Cities Accident RAPID Evaluation. Constant updates are being worked into the software so that the latest version will take advantage of technological 33 advancements. CARE is a sophisticated data analysis tool with its own proprietary database structures. Though it was primarily designed for the analysis of traffic accidents, it has the capability to analyze most of the crash data once that is imported into the CARE database. The CARE crash database for Alabama is based on the information obtained from the crash reporting Alabama Uniform Traffic Accident Report (AUTAR) forms. The AUTAR forms are completed by law enforcement personnel across the state of Alabama at the site of a crash. This information is then entered into the crash database by the state Department of Public Safety. The following points need to be noted about the coding scheme for roadways in CARE (CARE User Manual, version 7.5.9): i) All major highways, for example, the interstates, are mileposted. ii) Urban streets and roads and less-used rural roads use a link-node scheme, where each intersection has a node number and each road has a link number. iii) Node numbers are unique to each county, but not necessarily statewide. Presently Dr. David B. Brown from the Department of Computer Science at the University of Alabama heads the research and development of CARE. 4.2 Segment Characteristics CLRS are targeted towards reducing the head-on and sideswipe crashes that occur due to centerline crossovers. Though the possibility of CLRS reducing the run-off-the- road (ROR) crashes cannot be overlooked in CARE, however, filter criteria could not be established that would make a clear distinction between the left ROR (e.g. centerline 34 crossover) from right ROR crashes (e.g. vehicle running off the lane on the right hand side). Based on the literature review, survey responses and the data availability in CARE, the following set of criteria was established which defined the sites to be included in this analysis: i) The route must be a federal or state highway only; ii) Only those crashes occurring along the route should be included; iii) Crashes occurring at intersections should not be included; iv) The posted speed limit must be between and inclusive of 45 mph to 55 mph; v) The crash types as defined in CARE must only be ?head-on? or ?left front angle? or broadside left?; and vi) Segments must be a two-lane roadway; 4.3 CARE Filter Development The 1994 to 2003 Alabama crash data for CARE version 7.5.9 was used for data extraction in this study. The software works on the principle of filters, which is a querying technique to retrieve the relevant data from a dataset. This means that a set of criteria needs to be defined and data in the entire database is compared with these criteria. The data is selected and retrieved only if it matches the criteria. Since, a very specific dataset was required for analysis, it was necessary to construct a filter specific to the analysis. The following variables available in CARE matched the above mentioned criteria and were therefore used in the development of the filter: i) (V 010) Highway class: Federal, State; ii) (V 011) Intersection: Not intersection related; iii) (V 062) Speed limit posted (mph): 41-45, 46-50, 51-55; iv) (V 063) Initial impact : head-on or left front angle or left broad side only; and v) (V 082) Two ? lane only. The number in parentheses (e.g. (V 010)) represents the code or the designation assigned to the variable in CARE, followed immediately by the variable name (e.g. ?highway class?). The values following the variables (e.g. ?federal, state?), are further options available within the variable. From this point onwards, throughout this report, the term head-on refers to ?head-on or left front angle? crash types and sideswipe refers to ?left broad side only? crash type as shown in Figure 4.1. Figure 4.1 Impact Points on the Vehicle 35 To construct the filter, the chosen variables were first combined within themselves with ?OR? logic. For example, for the highway class category, the route would have to be either state OR federal in order to be selected. Then, all variables were combined with each other using the ?AND? logic. Figure 4.2 is a simplified representation of the filter constructed in CARE which has been used in this study. Figure 4.2 Simplified version of the CARE filter. This means that when the data retrieval process started, a particular dataset would have had to satisfy one option listed for each of the five variables (OR logic) and thus satisfy all five variables combined together (AND logic) which represents the selection criteria. To make sure that the retrieved data set was correct the following validation check was performed. Filter Validation Check Three separate filters were created. Filter A, would determine the number of crashes occurring for the crash type ?head-on only?. The Filter B would determine the number of crashes occurring for the crash type ?sideswipes only?. The sum of crashes from these two filters was compared with the number of crashes resulting from Filter C, which determined all the crashes that occurred under the ?head-on or left front angle or left broadside? crash types. 36 37 To construct each of these filters, all four variables as previously mentioned were used; changing only the crash type for ?(V063) Initial Impact? depending on the filter being constructed. 1. Criteria for Filter A, head-on only: ? (V 063) Initial impact: head-on or left front angle; 2. Criteria for Filter B sideswipe only: ? (V 063) Initial impact: left broad side only; 3. Criteria for Filter C, head-on or sideswipe: ? (V 063) Initial impact: head-on or left front angle or left broad side; The number of crashes filtered through Filter A and Filter B, respectively, were summed and the total was compared with the number of crashes obtained from Filter C. The values returned were: ? Filter A (81,377) + Filter B (4,684) = 86,061 crashes ? Filter C = 86,061 crashes The sum of Filters A and B was equal to Filter C, therefore validating the filter for data extraction process to make sure data extracted is correct and inclusive. It is to be noted that Filters A and B were constructed for the purpose of the validation check only. Filter C was the only filter used in CARE for all crash data extraction purposes. 38 It was observed, from the survey results, that CLRS have been installed mostly in rural and selected urban environments. Therefore, in the construction of Filter C, both rural and urban locations were considered. Also, no traffic control unit was specified since some routes may not have any control; therefore it is possible that some crashes may be excluded from the dataset, which may be a limitation of the filter. Both ?Passing? and ?No Passing? zones have been considered since the survey responses indicated that CLRS have been installed in both passing and no passing zones. 4.4 Identifying Candidate Segments The next step was to determine the locations that warrant the installation of CLRS. This study utilizes 10 years (i.e. 1994 to 2003) worth of Alabama crash data. The filter was set to Filter C. The ?Location? module available in CARE finds high accident location for any subset, by allowing the user to specify the number of accidents to define a high crash location. Therefore, before generating the list of segments, the maximum and minimum values for the number of crashes occurring on a segment need to be specified and only those segments that fell within a specific range would be selected. The default values for maximum and minimum were ?unlimited? and 25, respectively. For the purpose of this analysis; the default values were taken without making any changes. Segments with fewer than 25 crashes were not considered for data analysis. The ?Hotspots ? Segments? option available within the ?Locations? module was found most suitable in retrieving the required dataset because, this option identified a crash 39 location based on its milepost data. Therefore, using the ?Hotspots-segments? option available within the ?Locations? module or menu, the required dataset was retrieved. The list comprised of 73 locations for the State of Alabama, sorted by total ?head- on? and ?sideswipe? crash types, identified first by the county, followed by the area or city that the segment passed through and lastly by the beginning and an ending node. Finally, the link number (e.g. S-53) and brief description of the link were also available. The total numbers of crashes were further categorized by fatal, injury, and PDO for each segment, in the CARE output. The beginning and ending mileposts for a segment were identified and have been included in Appendix E. The number of crashes meeting the criteria, occurring on these 73 segments, summed to 2,659 compared to the 86,061 crashes all across Alabama, obtained initially. This difference is explained by the fact that the list was truncated at segments with a minimum of 25 crashes. The remaining segments had fewer than the specified minimum number of crashes and fell outside the specified range and therefore were not considered. 4.5 Candidate Segment Prioritization The next task was to prioritize the segments. At first glance, the number of crashes occurring on the segment would seem to be the deciding factor. However, for total number of crashes on a segment to be the method of prioritization, the segment lengths would have to be equal. Using the milepost data obtained previously, the individual segment lengths were determined. No milepost data was available for several segments located in urban areas. This is because some of the crashes on segments through urban areas are reported as mileposted, while others are reported as non- mileposted with only the beginning and ending nodes. The segment lengths were obtained by taking the difference between the mileposts, when the data was available. The missing milepost data was obtained from the Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT). The term ?Link? used in CARE represents the segment between two intersections which are marked by two nodes as seen in Figure 4.3. Figure 4.3 Illustrations of Segment Terminologies in CARE. In this report, however, the term ?Segment? refers to the section between the mileposts for which segment length was calculated. The ends of the segment may not necessarily coincide with the two nodes that define a link in CARE as seen in Figure 4.4 40 Figure 4.4 Illustrations of Modified Segment Terminologies. The segment lengths were compared and found to be of varying lengths. Therefore the first approach of prioritizing the segments based purely on total number of crashes occurring on the segment would no longer be considered. The new prioritization approach was to calculate a crash rate for individual segments. This approach normalized the crash data by eliminating the bias that arose due to the non-uniformity of segment lengths. The following standard formula developed by Garber and Hoel was used to determine the crash rate (crashes/ million vehicle miles of travel (MVMT) : Crash Rate = ? ? ? ? ? ? veh C NL N * 10* 6 (4.1) Where, N C = number of crashes on the segment; L = length of the segment (miles); and N veh = total number of vehicles (Garber and Hoel, 2001). 41 42 The traffic data required to determine the ?total number of vehicles? on the segment was obtained from the ALDOT 2004 Traffic Statistics website. Once the beginning and ending mileposts of segments were identified in CARE, the traffic data was taken off the counters located between the two mileposts as previously described in Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4 previously. A majority of the segments had traffic counters within the beginning and ending milepost. However, for segments where traffic counters were not found within the segment but immediately outside of the segment, the traffic data from that counter was taken under the following assumptions. This is illustrated in Figure 4.5 : i) No route merged with or diverged from, between the segment end and the counter which was outside the segment. ii) If there was more than one traffic counter immediately before or immediately after the segment with very close values of annual average daily traffic (AADT), then the average of the two counters was taken. Figure 4.5 is an illustration of the ALDOT?s 2004 traffic statistics website. The example segment which has been drawn over the map, shown in the figure, is segment number 27 as noted in Appendix E. As seen, the actual segment is between mileposts 1.58 and 1.21, but no traffic counters, which are represented by the yellow dots, can be found within the segment. There is a traffic counter immediately outside of the segment. Between milepost 1.58 and the traffic counter, there are no routes merging with or diverging from the route. Therefore, according to the first assumption, the traffic data from that counter can be taken for the purpose of this study. Figure 4.5 Illustration of ALDOT?s 2004 Traffic Statistics Webpage If the counters were outside of the segment and were not found to satisfy either of the above stated criteria, no traffic data was collected from those counters. Traffic data from counters was gathered for the years 1994 through 2003 to maintain consistency with the CARE data. To determine the AADT in case of multiple traffic counters within a segment, the AADT for each year was summed and then the algebraic average was taken. The averages were then added up to arrive at the cumulative AADT for a segment, over a ten year period. This was done for all the years from 1994 through 2003 for every 43 44 segment (Appendix F). An example calculation is shown below for segment number 58, which is State route 15 (Lee Rural) in Lee County. Table 4.1 Traffic Data for Example Segment # 58 AADT 1994 AADT 1995 AADT 1996 AADT 1997 AADT 1998 AADT 1999 AADT 2000 AADT 2001 AADT 2002 AADT 2003 Total AADT 4140 4250 4350 4530 4960 5260 5310 5140 5230 5200 4610 4740 4930 4760 5310 5190 5220 4990 5120 5130 Avg. AADT 4375 4495 4640 4645 5135 5225 5265 5065 5175 5165 49185 The AADT values for the years 1994 through 2003 were obtained from the Alabama traffic statistics website. The segment had two traffic counters hence the two rows of AADT for the ten years. The average AADT was the arithmetic average of yearly AADT volumes. The total AADT was found to be 49,185. This value was multiplied by 365 to arrive at total number of vehicles which was 17,952,525. Segment length in miles and total number of crashes, obtained from CARE, were 18.8 and 27, respectively. Using the formula stated in equation 4.1, the crash rate was calculated to be 0.08 for this segment. 4.6 Results and Findings The results of the segment prioritization, based on the crash rate, are listed in detail in Appendix G. The following plot shows the distribution of crash rates on the 55 segments. The histogram of crash rates reveals a positively skewed distribution as crash rates are comparatively high on certain segments, as seen in Figure 4.6. Figure 4.6 Distribution of Crash Rates Crash rates could not be determined for two segments i.e. # 28 and # 30 due to the unavailability of milepost data. Though segment lengths for most of the segments were available from ALDOT, the beginning and ending milepost information was unavailable for 18 segments as listed in Table 4.2. These segments were excluded from data analysis. 45 46 Table 4.2 Segments Excluded From Analysis Sl No. Segment # County City State Route Missing Data type 1 3 Lee Opelika S-169 Traffic 2 9 Shelby Pelham S-261 Traffic 3 11 Tuscaloosa Northport S-13 Traffic 4 13 Shelby Pelham S-261 Traffic 5 19 Walker Jasper S-4 Traffic 6 26 Jefferson Hoover S-150 Traffic 7 28 Elmore Wetumpka S-14 Milepost 8 30 Shelby Alabaster S-119 Milepost 9 32 Shelby Pelham S-261 Traffic 10 33 Lee Opelika S-1 Traffic 11 42 Colbert Muscle Shoals S-133 Traffic 12 51 Elmore Millsbrooke S-14 Traffic 13 52 Baldwin Spanish Fort S-225 Traffic 14 64 Mobile Saraland S-158 Traffic 15 69 Etowah Rainbow City S-77 Traffic 16 70 Walker Jasper S-118 Traffic 17 72 Jefferson Hoover S-150 Traffic 18 73 Jefferson Hoover S-150 Traffic With milepost information unknown, it was not possible to determine the location of these segments on their respective links and therefore traffic counters could not be located either. Without any traffic data, crash rate could not be calculated and therefore they were discarded from the final list of 55 segments which were prioritized based on crash rate. The next task was to conduct an economic analysis on these 55 segments to determine the unit crash costs for fatal, injury, and PDO crash types and therefore 47 determine the expected benefits of CLRS installation in terms of savings in crash costs due to the crashes prevented. 48 CHAPTER 5 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS The goal of carrying out an economic analysis was to establish the benefit to cost ratio to identify the potential benefits for a CLRS installation to justify the economic feasibility of CLRS. Similar analyses have been conducted in the past to evaluate the monetary benefits of SRS. One such case was the evaluation of SRS for a New York State Throughway (Perrillo, 1998). Crash data from before (1991) and after (1997) the installation of the SRS was used to determine the savings in crash costs due to crashes prevented. The life of SRS, which was assumed to be about 6 years, was also factored in to calculate the benefits. Costs associated were the cost of milling the SRS, sweeping and discarding of the excess asphalt and maintenance and protection of traffic. For this analysis in this report, the unit cost of each fatal, injury, and PDO crashes type was determined An expected reduction of 14% in the number of crashes following the CLRS installation was applied. This estimated reduction was selected from the IIHS study of 2003. This study analyzed all crash data considered ?reliable? from 7 states with 210 miles of CLRS and concluded that sites treated with CLRS had overall crash were reductions of 14%. The expected savings in crash costs (benefits) had the CLRS been in 49 place were calculated. No assumptions were made for the expected life for CLRS as no data was available regarding the same (probably because CLRS have not been in use on highways as long as SRS). The installation cost for CLRS was determined from the responses obtained from survey of state transportation agencies. CLRS would be considered cost-effective if the benefit to cost ratio is greater than 1. 5.1 Unit Crash Costs As seen previously in Appendix E, each of the segments had the total number of crashes broken down into fatal, injury and PDO. However, ?Injury? can range from being a bruise to being a critical injury requiring immediate medical assistance. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) report Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2000 uses the Modified Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) to sub-classify the ?Injury? crash type into six distinct slots to differentiate the injury levels and to classify an injury due to accidents for analysis and economic evaluation purposes. The MAIS injury categories are as follows: MAIS 0: Uninjured MAIS 1: Minor injury MAIS 2: Moderate injury MAIS 3: Serious injury MAIS 4: Major/multiple MAIS 5: Unsurvivable 50 PDO is used to describe those crashes in which nobody was injured in any manner. MAIS 5 represents an ?Unsurvivable? injury crash type which is different from the fatal crash type. The MAIS 5 describes a crash type in which the occupant or occupants of the vehicle have been critically injured due to the crash, but the crash would not have killed the occupant or occupants immediately, at the crash site. Fatal describes the crash type which resulted in immediate death of the occupant or occupants. The unit cost of injuries, as shown in Table 5.1 was obtained from the NHTSA report Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2000 which estimates the crash costs for the year 2000. Number of crashes for the year 2000, also obtained from the same report, are as shown in Table 5.2. Though the report provided both reported and unreported crashes, it did not specify how the numbers of unreported crashes were obtained. Therefore, for the purpose of this study, only the crash numbers for reported crashes were used. Table 5.1 Unit Crash Costs for the Year 2000, (NHTSA, 2002). 51 Table 5.2 Total Number of Crashes in the Year 2000 (NHTSA, 2002) The following procedure was developed to determine the single representative cost of injury across the MAIS scale. The number of injuries in each MAIS category were divided by the sum of injuries across all MAIS categories and then multiplied by their respective cost. For example, the total numbers of injury occurring in year 2000 were 6,133,070 out of which, MAIS 0 accounts for 2,002,667 injuries or 0.3265 of the total number of injuries. This percentage was multiplied with $1,962; the cost of MAIS 0 in year 2000 to arrive at the weighted average cost of $640.66 for MAIS 0. This was done for each category and the resulting values were summed to obtain a weighted 52 53 average cost, representative of the cost of an injury crash type. This was calculated to be $18,160 as tabulated in Table 5.3. Table 5.3 Representative Cost of Injury. Injury Scale Crash Cost in year 2000 ( $ ) #Reported Injuries in year 2000 Weighted average Crash cost per MAIS category ($) MAIS 0 1,962 2,002,667 640.66 MAIS 1 10,562 3,599,995 6,199.69 MAIS 2 66,820 366,987 3,998.34 MAIS 3 186,097 117,694 3,571.21 MAIS 4 348,133 36,264 2,058.46 MAIS 5 1,096,161 9,463 1,691.32 Total 6,133,070 18,160 The injury costs stated in the report were on a per-person basis and it is very likely that more than one person was involved in the crash. The number of people involved in the head-on or sideswipe crash types was retrieved from the CARE database and it was determined that on average (weighted average), for the head-on and sideswipe crash types occurring on the original 73 segments, there were approximately 1.7 vehicles/crash and 1.5 occupants/vehicle. Occupants per vehicle were converted to occupants per crash by simple multiplication of the two factors: [1.5 occupants/veh] * [1.7 veh / crash] = 2.55 occupants / crash (5.1) This average value of 2.55 occupants / crash was factored into the calculation of cost per unit-crash for fatal and injury crash types. As the CARE crash database being 54 used for this analysis extends over a period of ten years (1994 to 2003), the dollar value calculated for the year 2000 would not be a representative value for the crashes spanning across ten years. A monetary value midway across the analysis period, which may be more representative of the crash cost, was determined. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Consumer Price Index had a 3% yearly inflation rate during the 1994 to 2003 period. Using the 3% per year inflation rate, the 2000 dollar value was deflated by 4.5% to arrive at a unit cost midway between 1998 and 1999 which marks the midpoint of the ten year analysis period. This procedure is illustrated in the following calculation of the unit cost of an injury crash type. The weighted average unit cost of injury crash type for the year 2000 was found to be $18,159. This value was deflated by 4.5% (at the rate of 3% deflation per year) to arrive at the dollar value midway between the years 1998 and 1999 which was found to be $17,342. This value was then multiplied with 2.55 to factor in the average number of people involved in an injury crash type to arrive at $44,223. Unit crash costs for fatal and PDO were taken directly from the NTHSA report mentioned previously and the 2.55 occupants/crash and 1.7 vehicles / crash were then factored in the costs. The costs were deflated by 4.5 % and the final values of per-crash costs for fatal, injury, and PDO, respectively, have been summarized in Table 5.4. 55 Table 5.4 Final Unit Crash Cost per Crash Type Crash Type Cost per unit crash type ($) Fatal 2,426,407 Injury 44,223 PDO 4,110 5.2 Benefit to Cost Ratio The estimated 14% reduction was applied to determine number of crashes prevented, following the installation of CLRS. Savings in crash costs due to number of crashes prevented was the expected benefit of CLRS. The costs associated with CLRS included the cost of installation only. 5.2.1 Costs The cost of installation was determined from the preliminary survey responses. The cost of installation as reported in the survey ranged from $0.10/ linear foot to $1.52/ linear foot. No definitive relationship could be established between the cost and miles of installation because more miles did not consistently translate into reduced installation costs and vice versa. Hence, the representative cost of installation of CLRS was determined through the arithmetic mean. The average cost was found to be $0.55/ linear foot and this value was used for calculations in establishing installation costs associated with CLRS. Cost of installation of CLRS in New Jersey was reported as $4.50/ linear foot compared to the next lower cost of installation, which was $1.52/ linear foot as reported in the survey. Therefore, this value was considered an outlier, which is shown by an asterisk towards the upper end in Figure 5.1. This value was therefore not included in the calculation of cost of installation. The boxplot from MiniTab also shows the 75 th percentile cost, the median or 50 th percentile and 25 th percentile. These values have been used later in the report for sensitivity analysis. Also, for the calculation of costs associated with CLRS, only the cost of installation was taken into account. Figure 5.1 Cost Data for CLRS Installation 5.2.2 Benefits The benefits were the savings in crash costs due to the installation of CLRS. It has been reported that up to a 14% overall reduction was observed in head-on and sideswipe crash types due to the installation of CLRS (Persaud et al., 2003). This study analyzed all crash data considered ?reliable? from 7 states with 210 miles of CLRS and 56 57 concluded that sites treated with CLRS had overall crash were reductions of 14%. Therefore, numbers of crashes represented by the 14% were determined for every segment. Then this number was broken down by weighted average into fatal, injury, and PDO. The cost of fatal, injury, and PDO were calculated these were summed up to arrive at a total cost for each of the three crash types. This procedure was done for each of the 55 segments (Appendix H). Also, it was assumed that crash severity index does not change on a particular segment across the years and across the crash types for the entire analysis period (1994 to 2003). 5.3 Results and Findings The cost of installation at $0.55/ linear foot for a total of 224.67 miles was found to be $676,167. These miles did not include the segments for which data was unavailable. The benefits or cost savings in terms of crashes prevented was found to be $7,727,380. The benefit to cost ratio was calculated using the following formula: B/C ratio = Cost savings due to crashes prevented (5.2) Cost of installation of CLRS The costs incurred did not include the crash costs because the remaining 86% of the crashes would be expected to have occurred, regardless of the presence of the countermeasure. The benefit to cost ratio was found to be 16.5. 58 5.4 Sensitivity Analysis Since the cost of installation and reductions observed, following the deployment of CLRS have the big impact on the benefit to cost ratio, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to observe: i) The impact of cost of installation of CLRS on the benefit to cost ratio; and ii) The impact of percentage reduction in number of crashes on the benefit to cost ratio. 5.4.1 Cost of Installation of CLRS vs. Benefit to Cost ratio The costs of installation chosen for the analysis are as shown in Table 5.5 and the corresponding plot in Figure 5.2. The percentile costs were obtained form the boxplot in Figure 5.1. It is seen from the plot that by as that as cost of installation increases, the B/C ratio decreases. Benefits calculated remained unchanged for this calculation. The estimated crash reduction of 14% was applied when calculating the benefits for the given values of installation costs. Table 5.5 Cost Values for Sensitivity analysis Benefit($) Cost, $/ L.F. Cost ($) B/C Lowest cost reported from survey 0.10 118625.8 92.4 25th percentile 0.20 237251.5 46.2 50th percentile 0.26 308427 35.5 Arithmetic average 0.55 652441.7 16.5 75th percentile 1.51 1803112 6.0 10,961,898 Highest cost reported from survey 1.52 1791249 6.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Installation Cost $/L.F. B/ C Figure 5.2 Sensitivity of Benefit to Cost Ratio (B/C) to CLRS Installation Cost 59 5.4.2 Crash Reduction vs. Benefit to Cost ratio The crash reduction following the installation of CLRS, documented from the studies discussed in the literature review, were applied to this hypothetical study to observe the effects of crash reductions on the overall benefit to cost ratio. The reductions applied and the corresponding study where these reductions were observed are shown in Table 5.6 and the values have been plotted in Figure 5.3. The cost of installation was kept constant at $0.55/ linear foot for this part of analysis. Table 5.6 Overall Crash Reductions Observed SOURCE OBSERVED REDUCTION B/C IIHS 14% 16.5 IIHS 21% 25.2 Minnesota 40% 48.0 Washington State 50% 60.0 Japan 55.2% 66.2 Delaware 60% 72.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 2040608 % Reduction in Crossover Crashes B/ C 0 Figure 5.3 Sensitivity of B/C ratio to Overall Crash Reductions It is observed, both from the values in 60 61 Table 5.6 and Figure 5.3, that benefit to cost ratio demonstrates an almost linear relationship with percentage crash reductions observed. 62 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS The results of both the survey of current practice and economic analysis indicate that CLRS are a cost-effective countermeasure for reducing the head-on and sideswipe crash types. Studies documenting the influence of traffic volumes observed that the changes in traffic volume had a pronounced effect on the crash reductions by CLRS. Higher AADT volumes resulted in increased crash reduction, provided that the number of crashes did not increase proportionately with increase in traffic volumes, as shown in equation 4.1. Since CLRS installations are targeted on reducing collisions due to lane crossovers, their deployment focuses primarily on two-lane rural routes and selected urban areas. 6.1 State-of-the-Practice Though the safety of motorcyclists is of concern, the majority of the states have not directly considered bicycle riders. This may be attributed to the fact that bicycle riders tend to ride towards the outer edge of the traveled way or within the designated lane and it is less likely that bicycles will traverse across the CLRS as compared to vehicles traversing across them. The noise generated by vehicles traversing over the CLRS is not a concern in most states, most probably because CLRS is being installed 63 mostly in rural areas, as reported in the surveys. It was noted that out of the 26 states that responded to the survey, 10 states (38%) specify a tolerance in the dimensions of groove depth. It may therefore be inferred that during milling operations it is tougher to achieve the exact groove depth than it is to achieve the other two dimensions. The state-of-the- practice surveys also reveal that CLRS dimensions vary both within the state and between the states. 6.2 Crash Reporting and Crash Data Management The CARE software, used in identification and prioritization of the candidate segments, proved to be very efficient in the extraction of the required data from the CARE crash database. The software provides 250 variables to choose from to construct the filter in order to retrieve specific crash data. Accuracy of these filters was reinforced through a filter validation check. The manner in which data has been coded in the crash database may be a limiting factor when retrieving crash data. For example, a head-on or sideswipe type crash with another vehicle may not be differentiated from a head-on collision or sideswipe with a fixed object because the crash reporting form, which is the basis for data in the CARE crash database, does not provide the option to do so. 6.3 Potential CLRS Benefits The IIHS study of 2003 reports that a 14% overall reduction has been observed in the number of crashes, following the CLRS installation across seven states in the U.S. 64 The expected crash reduction of 14% applied to this study, estimates that there would be almost no fatal crashes on the candidate segments, once the CLRS are installed; as seen in Appendix H. At $0.55/ linear foot, which is the cost estimate derived from the survey results; the cost of installation is low. In addition to this, the CLRS can be retrofitted to most of the existing pavement. The (hypothetical) economic analysis reveals a benefit to cost ratio of 16.5 for installation of CLRS on candidate segments in Alabama, which reinforces the advantages of CLRS. Thus, positive findings are evident from the surveys and economic analysis conducted herein. Based on the survey responses, 13out of the total 50 states (26%) across the U.S. were actively using the CLRS while five out of 50 states (10%) were conducting research and field tests to evaluate the effectiveness of CLRS, at the time of the survey. Due consideration needs to be given towards widespread application of CLRS on two-lane roadways and other areas where there are higher than average incidences of head-on and sideswipe type crashes. Finally, though the results of this study are specific to the state of Alabama, the procedure for selection of candidate locations and data analysis can be applied to almost any state to determine locations that warrant CLRS. This methodology does not account for variations in road geometrics and may therefore be making the benefit to cost ratio indicative of the effectiveness of CLRS for a variety of road profiles. 65 CHAPTER 7 RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 Data Entry in Crash Reporting Forms The crash reporting forms certainly need to be updated to either include more variables in order to accurately categorize a crash or some means should be provided within the form for the law enforcement officer to enter details of the crash. The crashes are reported based on their milepost location in rural areas and based on nodes in an urban area which results in a non-uniform crash database. The manner in which the location of a crash is entered in the crash reporting form needs to be standardized. 7.2 CLRS Installations The benefit to cost ratio of 16.5 together with an estimated crash reduction of 14% in head-on and sideswipe type crashes, which would almost eliminate fatal crashes are strong indicators of the advantages of CLRS. Therefore, installation of CLRS on the candidate segments is strongly recommended. Appendix G is the complete list of candidate segments, prioritized based on their crash rates in the state of Alabama. 66 7.3 Recommendations for Future Research Applications of CLRS are still in their early stages, which leaves plenty of room for future investigations and research. The following are a few of the areas recommended for further study pertaining to CLRS applications. ? ALDOT should conduct a pilot project on selected locations followed by a study of installation effects aimed towards suggesting a ?best? dimension for CLRS. The locations and number of segments chosen for trial installations is a decision of ALDOT. Data should be collected on tactile responses and noise generated. A study should also document driver responses, impact of CLRS on motorcycles traveling at high speeds and impact of CLRS on bicyclists. ? It is recommended that ALDOT establish guidelines and warrants for CLRS installations for the state of Alabama. ? The changes in traffic volumes must be documented along with changes in the number of crashes following CLRS installation, to get a better estimate of the impact of CLRS on crash reduction. ? Work needs to be done in documenting the impact of alignment and road geometrics, such as curves, on the performance of CLRS. ? A study that takes into account other traffic control measures, such as pavement markings, in conjunction with CLRS is also strongly recommended. 67 REFERENCES Alabama Department of Transportation. . March 2005. Bureau of Labor Statistics. . January 18, 2006. Delaware Department of Transportation. . February 03, 2005. L. Blincoe, A. Seay, E. Zaloshnja, T..Miller, E. Romano, S. Luchter and R.Spicer. ? The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2000?. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: 2002. Garber, Nicholas J. and Hoel, Lester A. Traffic and Highway Engineering, third edition. pp.139. Thomson Learning, 2001. Hirasawa, Masayuki, Asano, Motoki, Saito, Kazuo. ?Study on Development and Practical Use of Rumble Strips as a New Measure for Highway Safety?. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6: 2005. Noyce, David A. and Elango, Vetri Ventham. ?Safety Evaluation of Center Line Rumble Strips: A Crash and Driver Behavior Analysis?. Transportation Research Record, Issue 1862: 2004. Outcalt, William. ?Centerline Rumble Strips?. Colorado Department of Transportation Research Branch: 2001. Perrillo, Kerry, ?The Effectiveness and Use of Continuous Shoulder Rumble Strips?. Federal Highway Administration: 1998. Persaud, Bhagwant N., Retting, Richard A. and Lyon Craig. ?Crash Reduction Following the Installation of Centerline Rumble Strips on Two-Lane Roads?. IIHS: 2003. Porter , R.J. , Donnell, Eric T., Mahoney, Kevin M. ?Evaluation of the Effects of Centerline Rumble Strips on Lateral Vehicle Placement and Speed?. Transportation Research Record, Issue 1862: 2004. 68 Russell, Eugene R., Rys , Margaret J. and Brin ,Troy S. ?US Experience with Centerline Rumble Strips on Two-Lane roads: Pattern Research and North American Usage?. ARRB Transport Research, Limited: 2003. Russell, Eugene R. and Rys, Margaret J. ?Centerline Rumble Strips: A Synthesis of Highway Practice?. NCHRP Synthesis 339: 2005. APPENDIX A PRELIMINARY SURVEY 69 Auburn University Highway Research Center Study of Transportation Agencies Regarding Centerline Rumble Strips Practices 1. Does your agency use the Centerline Rumble Strips? Proceed if yes. If no, please explain briefly if there were any specials concerns. Are the Center Line Rumble Strips in consideration for future? 2. What criteria were used to determine the installation location? 3. What pattern is being currently used? Check the applicable. Rolled Milled Corrugated Raised 4. Please provide the detailed dimensions currently used in Centerline Rumble Strip OR enclose a copy of the standards / specifications used, with the survey response 5. Does the design configuration vary across the state? (e.g. topography, rural/urban) 70 6. How many miles have been installed, and when did the installation commence? 7. Is the cost of installation of Centerline Rumble Strip included along with other contract bid items or is it a separate item? What is the typical cost or range of costs? 8. What are the evaluation criteria for effectiveness of Centerline Rumble Strips: Safety (e.g. Crash data, statistics) Costs (e.g. benefit to cost ratio) Road Geometrics Weather Driver inputs Other _______________________ Evaluation underway No evaluation done 9. Have the auditory and vibratory levels produced by the chosen pattern been measured? 10. What were the challenges and/or concerns faced during installation (if any)? 71 72 11. Have any warrants, policies or guidelines been created which are directed towards the installation of the Centerline Rumble Strip? 12. Were any special signs developed to alert the motorists about the presence of the Centerline Rumble Strips ahead on the road? If yes, please describe in detail or include figure. 13. How were the general public made aware of this ?new installation?? 14. Did regional factors have any effect on performance of Centerline Rumble Strips? (E.g. snow in the northern regions, debris buildup in the groves in dry, arid regions or any other related factors.) 15. Was any special consideration given to bicycle or motorcycle traffic during the design or selection of installation locations? 73 16. Any additional comments? 17. Who may we contact if follow up information on Centerline Rumble Strips is needed? Thank you for your time! Please return the completed survey in the postage-paid envelope provided, or send it to: Dr Rod E. Turochy, Department Of Civil Engineering, Harbert Engineering Center, Auburn University, AL 36849-5337 Ph: (334) 844-6271 E-mail: rturochy@eng.auburn.edu APPENDIX B PRELIMINARY SURVEY RESPONSES 74 [Q1] [Q2] [Q5] [Q6] [Q7] [Q10] [Q11] [Q12] [Q13] [Q14] [Q15] [Q16] Sl. No. State CRS in use?If not, any reason. Criterion to determine location for installation Variation in CRS design across state Miles of CRS and date when started Separate bid item or included with other costs. Cost of installation Challenges Faced / Concerns Warrants / Policies / Guidelines specific to CRS deployment Signs developed to alert motorists Efforts towards Public awareness of CRS Influence of regional factors (if any) Motorcycle traffic concerns (if any) Additional comments by state DOT 1 AR Yes NA No 74 miles Fall / Winter 2004 Separate bid item $0.2/L.F Safety of traveling public and workers while the installation was in progress No No By observation Data not collected No None 2A Z N o 3 CO Yes crash history of location No 44.3 miles Date NA Usually a separate item Cost NA Bicycle rider concerns Standards included Standards included Public announcemen t No Yes, CRS have a positive result NA 4 FL No do have an experimental project setup 2-lane road with high rate of opposite direction lane crossovers. No NA With other contract bid items No No None yet No Yes Installing a 'Rainline' project with audible bumps at a 2" spacing for evaluation 5H I N o NA APPENDIX B1 CRS not in use CRS not in use PRELIMINARY SURVEY RESPONSES Auburn University Highway Research Center - Study of Transportation Agencies Regarding Centerline Rumble Strip Practices 75 [Q1] [Q2] [Q5] [Q6] [Q7] [Q10] [Q11] [Q12] [Q13] [Q14] [Q15] [Q16] Sl. No. State CRS in use?If not, any reason. Criterion to determine location for installation Variation in CRS design across state Miles of CRS and date when started Separate bid item or included with other costs. Cost of installation Challenges Faced / Concerns Warrants / Policies / Guidelines specific to CRS deployment Signs developed to alert motorists Efforts towards Public awareness of CRS Influence of regional factors (if any) Motorcycle traffic concerns (if any) Additional comments by state DOT 6 ID Yes Enhance safety of highway US- 12 for the up and coming Lewis and Clarke Bicentennial event No ~ 65 miles Summer/F all 2004 Separate bid item $0.24/ L.F (total of 116,800 LF) Maintaining required uniform depth on the CRS alignment (grinder had trouble staying aligned with the centerline) No Yes 1)Public news release 2) added a portable message sign trailer at each end of the project indicating new CRS next XX miles No 1)Advanced signage for notification 2)Bicycles are not to be on the centerline 1) first time being used in Idaho 2)Installed on double yellow striped curves only, where noise would not effect adjacent residential development 3) Concern for Maintenance Forces when roadway patching is necessary 4) Evaluation of CRS being done in No Passing zones 5) CRS installation'Working well' 7 IA No 1)CRS will be used as a tool to reduce crashes in high crash locations 2) have talked to other states and are ready for installation 3) interested in the NCHRP on-going study 8L A N o CRS not in useCRS not in use 76 [Q1] [Q2] [Q5] [Q6] [Q7] [Q10] [Q11] [Q12] [Q13] [Q14] [Q15] [Q16] Sl. No. State CRS in use?If not, any reason. Criterion to determine location for installation Variation in CRS design across state Miles of CRS and date when started Separate bid item or included with other costs. Cost of installation Challenges Faced / Concerns Warrants / Policies / Guidelines specific to CRS deployment Signs developed to alert motorists Efforts towards Public awareness of CRS Influence of regional factors (if any) Motorcycle traffic concerns (if any) Additional comments by state DOT 9M E N o 1)Expected future installation locations include (a) Rural 2-lane areas (b) Locations with high instance of lane cross-overs (c) Low speed 4 lane segments 2)Contemplating the use as a part of the lane departure strategies 3) Concerns are for noise and effect on motorcyclists. 10 MI Yes A 4-lane section with slightly higher than average head-on crash- rate NA 7 miles Fall 2002 Separate bid item $0.10/L.F (shoulder) none Not yet A Yellow warning sign "Centerline Rumble Strips ahead" Newspaper, TV News No Gaps at intersection and some drives, 1) Depth of 3/8" chosen due to noise concerns 2) 3/8" is less jarring than 1/2" and provided smooth moving operations 3) More CRS usage in future 5) Painted SRS are better visible in night and protected from snow plough damage CRS not in use 77 [Q1] [Q2] [Q5] [Q6] [Q7] [Q10] [Q11] [Q12] [Q13] [Q14] [Q15] [Q16] Sl. No. State CRS in use?If not, any reason. Criterion to determine location for installation Variation in CRS design across state Miles of CRS and date when started Separate bid item or included with other costs. Cost of installation Challenges Faced / Concerns Warrants / Policies / Guidelines specific to CRS deployment Signs developed to alert motorists Efforts towards Public awareness of CRS Influence of regional factors (if any) Motorcycle traffic concerns (if any) Additional comments by state DOT 13 MO Pilot project (Under testing) Team assembled to determine the criteria NA 12 mile test section 2003 Given as change order (change pav marking material) $61, 559 (~$0.97/L.F) 1)Centerline Joint placement 2) to seal/not seal the milled CRS 3)life of pavement 4) width to choose 5)ice formation in grooves in winter operations 6) effect of water in grooves and its effect on the retroreflectivity of the stripe 7)will the glass beads stick to both sides of the strip face? under development No Let the public 'discover' the CRS by themselves. Future installations will have newspaper announcemen ts and public meetings Data not collected Team still reviewing all CRS installations for motorcyclists and bicyclists Responding to a similar survey for BYU for UDOT 14 MT No Has some concerns Concerns include 1) Location (Only at no passing zones in both directions?) 2) Effect on motorcycles 3)lane configuration (2-lane only, 4-lane undivided?) 3) Water and ice accumulation 4) Maintenance CRS not in use 78 [Q1] [Q2] [Q5] [Q6] [Q7] [Q10] [Q11] [Q12] [Q13] [Q14] [Q15] [Q16] Sl. No. State CRS in use?If not, any reason. Criterion to determine location for installation Variation in CRS design across state Miles of CRS and date when started Separate bid item or included with other costs. Cost of installation Challenges Faced / Concerns Warrants / Policies / Guidelines specific to CRS deployment Signs developed to alert motorists Efforts towards Public awareness of CRS Influence of regional factors (if any) Motorcycle traffic concerns (if any) Additional comments by state DOT 15 NE Yes higher than average head- on collisions and run-off-the- road crashes No 30 miles Date NA NA NA No No No No Gaps at intersection were not milled NA 16 NJ Yes Accident history and severity opposing direction side- swipe and head - on collision No NA Paid for separately $4.50/L.F Not aware of any No No Let the public 'discover' the CRS by themselves. No No Installed in "No Passing" zones only 17 OK Yes On one segment only.CRS not in use otherwise only use of CRS is on a 5 - lane highway, along the margins of the two-way left turn lane, when speeds exceed 45 mph. 18 OR No Experimental. Limited resources Data not provided (see 'CLRS Details') Crossover Crashes in some regions & watch the fieled and figure out the target area BUT not promoting CRS not in use CRS not in use 79 [Q1] [Q2] [Q5] [Q6] [Q7] [Q10] [Q11] [Q12] [Q13] [Q14] [Q15] [Q16] Sl. No. State CRS in use?If not, any reason. Criterion to determine location for installation Variation in CRS design across state Miles of CRS and date when started Separate bid item or included with other costs. Cost of installation Challenges Faced / Concerns Warrants / Policies / Guidelines specific to CRS deployment Signs developed to alert motorists Efforts towards Public awareness of CRS Influence of regional factors (if any) Motorcycle traffic concerns (if any) Additional comments by state DOT 19 PA Yes Accident history and severity opposing direction sideswipe and head-on collision) May vary 1500 miles over 250 locations Separate bid item $1.50/L.F (avg) 1)shallow bituminous overlays degraded after milling. Thus guidelines revised to require a minimum depth of overlay 2) mechanical difficulties and problems with paint gun cartridges during early stages of CRS deployment but resolved later by modification of painting equipment. 1)Standards included 2)Currently rewriting guidelines to remove CRS based on ADT requirements No No No 1)None for bicycle traffic due to lack of it ion CRS 2)CRS not perceived hazardous to motorcycles , hence no concession None 20 SC No Under research for expected install in 2005. Crash history of location, and its pattern will be the selection criterion CRS not in use 80 [Q1] [Q2] [Q5] [Q6] [Q7] [Q10] [Q11] [Q12] [Q13] [Q14] [Q15] [Q16] Sl. No. State CRS in use?If not, any reason. Criterion to determine location for installation Variation in CRS design across state Miles of CRS and date when started Separate bid item or included with other costs. Cost of installation Challenges Faced / Concerns Warrants / Policies / Guidelines specific to CRS deployment Signs developed to alert motorists Efforts towards Public awareness of CRS Influence of regional factors (if any) Motorcycle traffic concerns (if any) Additional comments by state DOT 21 TX No Effectiveness of CRS in research. Results awaited Evaluation criteria will be safety and costs 22 VT No 23 VA Yes 1)Higer crash frequencies 2) request from local agencies and citizens (The road sections on Route 460 had experienced High frequency of COCL crashes.) No 15 Miles Oct 1999 Both $1.52/ L.F 1)Installation on road 'zones' (passing, special zones) 2)CLRS with markers, RPMS 3) Maintenance issues such as CL joint and marking longitivity 4)Special TCDs to supplement under development No No No No Effectiveness of CRS on needs to be statistically identified. Issues stated under "challenges faced" need to be studied 24 WA Yes Crash history Yes 110 miles 1996 Separate bid item $0.28/L.F (avg.) (varies from $0.13/l/f to $0.76/l/f) NA under development No NA No No Need a copy of the summary of the response data Collected by AU CRS not in use CRS not in use 81 [Q1] [Q2] [Q5] [Q6] [Q7] [Q10] [Q11] [Q12] [Q13] [Q14] [Q15] [Q16] Sl. No. State CRS in use?If not, any reason. Criterion to determine location for installation Variation in CRS design across state Miles of CRS and date when started Separate bid item or included with other costs. Cost of installation Challenges Faced / Concerns Warrants / Policies / Guidelines specific to CRS deployment Signs developed to alert motorists Efforts towards Public awareness of CRS Influence of regional factors (if any) Motorcycle traffic concerns (if any) Additional comments by state DOT 25 WI Yes Locations with higher than average crash rate on rural highways, centerline cross - overs, highway must have 12' lanes with 3' paved shoulders (Highway 142, near Kenosha, WI NA Miles NA Spring 2005 no bid prices as of now $0.13 - $0.75/L.F (MNDOT data) Traffic control No No Signs and newspaper Data not collected maybe later 1) CRS not yet installed 2) IIHS completed a report on this topic in Sept 2003 3)Paper presentation by Dave Noyce of UW-Madison at Jan 2004 TRB . 26 WY Yes (test) locations with high instance opposing direction crashes - US- 287, South of Laramie, WY No ~ 5 miles Date NA NA Difficult traffic control Not yet No Public meetings and public service announcemen t CRS helped drivers stay on road during blizzard conditions Cyclists concern "Vehicles are less likely to cross centerline to provide additional space when they pass bicycles in this area". Data insufficient to be able to study effectiveness of CRS yet 82 Sl. NO. STATE GROOVE Peculiarities (if any) Pattern T.W (inch) Margin +/ - (inch) L.W (inch) Margin +/- (inch) Groove Depth (inch) Margin +/- (inch) Notes 1A R Milled - 12" continuous 16 0 7" 1/2" 1/2" (min) 5/8" (max) 0 2A Z Milled (mostly) Rolled GRIND-IN RS 12" 0 5" 0 3/8" 0 Two- lane divided & Four- lane undivided highways (Asphalt & Concrete) Milled (mostly) Rolled FORMED OR ROLLED 24" Continuous 12" 0 2.375" 0 1/2" (min) 1" (max) 0 1)Two- lane divided & Four- lane undivided highway (concrete only) 2)Maximum groove depth of 3/16" from top of travel lane after RS completion to top of concrete travel lane. 4F L Raised patternn was used for an experimental installation 5H I 6I A 7I D Milled - 12" continuous 12" 0 7" 1/2" 1/2" (min) 5/8" (max) 0 Groove depth = 110 mills +/- 5 mills 8L A 9M E 10 MI Milled - 12" continuous 12" 0 7" 0 3/8" 0 For noise concerns depth = 3/8 inch 11 MN Milled - 12" continuous 12" 0 7" 0 0.5" 0 APPENDIX B2 RESPONSES TO QUESTION #3 CO CRS not in use CRS not in use CRS not in use CRS not in use 3 CRS not in use CRS not in use 83 - Sl. NO. STATE GROOVE Peculiarities (if any) Pattern T.W (inch) Margin +/ (inch) L.W (inch) Margin +/- (inch) Groove Depth (inch) Margin +/- (inch) Notes 12 MS CRS not in use 13 MO CRS not in use 14 MT CRS not in use 15 NE Milled - 12" continuous 16" 0 7" 0 1/2" (max) to 5/8"(min) 0 16 NJ Milled and Rolled - 12" continuous 16" 0 7" 0 1/2" 1/8" SRS dimensions. Maybe same for CRS 17 OK CRS not in use 18 OR Milled Type E : Pattern A 24" continuous 16" 0 7" 0.6" 1/2" 0.06" OR 3/50" Rural highway with median. Used in No Passing zones Milled Type E : Pattern B 24" & 48" alternating 16" 0 7" 0.6" 1/2" 0.06" OR 3/50" Rural highway without median. For Use in No Passing Left, No Passing Right and Passing sections. Milled Type D (Rural highways WITH Median. Experimental Instalation) 12" continuous 16" 0 7" 0.6" 1/2" 0.06" OR 3/50" (1) EXPERIMENTAL installation (2)Min Requirements: 12 ft.lanes and paved shoulders (3) CRS installed at center if median = 4ft (4)For median >4ft. CRS installed at 12 inch inside each median strip (5) State Traffic Engineer's approval required prior to installation 19 PA Milled Detail #1 24" & 48" alternating 16" 0 7" 1/2" 1/2" 1/16" 1)Lane width 12 ft.or more with minimum 3' paved shoulder 2) Roadway with 11ft. Lanes and minimum 3ft. Paved shoulder, use Detail # 1 or # 2 Milled Detail #2 24" continuous 14" to 18" 0 7" 1/2" 1/2" 1/16" used on roadway with 1) 11 ft. lane and no shoulder or shoulder less than 3 ft. 2) 10ft. Lane with or without shoulder 84 - Sl. NO. STATE GROOVE Peculiarities (if any) Pattern T.W (inch) Margin +/ (inch) L.W (inch) Margin +/- (inch) Groove Depth (inch) Margin +/- (inch) Notes 20 SC CRS not in use 21 TX CRS not in use 22 VT CRS not in use 23 VA Milled - 12" continuous 12" 0 7" 0 1/2" 0 A 1.5 mile Rolled pattern was installed as a first pilot site for testing by one District in 1999 and this type of CLRS will not be used in the future. 24 WA CRS not in use 25 WI Milled - 24" continuous 8" 1/2 " 7" 1/2" 1/2" (min) 3/8" (max) 0 26 WY Milled - 12" continuous 12" 0 7" 0 1/2" 0 85 APPENDIX B3 RESPONSES TO QUESTION # 8 AND # 9 Evaluation Criteria Measuring Stimuli Sl No States Safety Costs Road geometrics Weather Driver Inputs Evaluation Underway No Evaluation Done Other Auditory Vibratory 1 AZ CRS not in use 2 AR X No No 3 CO X X X www.dot.state.co.us/publicatio ns/researchreports.htm 4 FL X 5 HI CRS not in use 6 ID X X X No No 7 IA CRS not in use 8 LA CRS not in use 9 ME CRS not in use 10 MI X X X X X X No No 11 MN X N o N o 12 MS 13 MO X X No No 14 MT 15 NE X X X No No 16 NJ X N o N o 17 OK 18 OR 19 PA Crash data 20 SC CRS not in use 21 TX 22 VT CRS not in use 23 VA X N o N o 24 WA X No No 25 WI X UW-Wisconsin will evaluate No No 26 WY X X X No No 86 APPENDIX C FOLLOW-UP SUMMARY 87 APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF FOLLOW-UP SURVEY RESPONSES Sl.No. Question State Response 1 How were the dimensions of the CRS decided upon? Arkansas NA Colorado TW = 12" due to the presence of double yellow in NPZ Michigan NA Minnesota Used in areas with ADT>5000. Watched other states (mostly Kansas and Pennsylvania) -watched performance of different designs at test facility -installation of these designs given to one contractor- start with 5" . Move to 24" & 48" alternating ,6" also not good (both found unfit with 8"tires on police cars). Hence used8" BUT installation costs are $2/ft. Nebraska Same as SRS Oregon NA Pennsylvania Research Virginia NA Wisconsin Similar to Minnesota; based off SRS Wyoming NA 2 CRS configuration: according to the DOT?s response, no values for auditory/vibratory stimuli have been provided. so, how was the depth of the grooves decided upon? Arkansas NA Colorado Depth determined through a study conducted to develop bicycle friendly RS Michigan NA Minnesota Tweak off the SRS Nebraska By acceptance of SRS Oregon NA Pennsylvania Tests conducted on different groove depths; 50 or 60 dB was found to be the lower end. Virginia 0.35" not creating much stimulus ; 0.50" =Adequate stimuli, easy construction and maintenance (5% tolerance) Wisconsin Tweaked off the SRS Wyoming NA 3 What audible levels were considered ?noise? by the residents? Arkansas NA Colorado People do complain but DOT not bothered. Puts then in areas of high ROR crashes Michigan NA Minnesota CRS had to be 400ft away from the residential area to stay within noise levels. Used (For the first 170m of installation) 24" continuous pattern - guest editorial in newspaper read that CRS causes noise but is in the interest to save live Nebraska Any noise at all Oregon Not a problem since CRS placed on tight curves only . Installations still experimental Pennsylvania Not a concern Virginia NA Wisconsin There is a concern, but not a major one Wyoming Not a problem 88 Sl.No. Question State Response 4 How was the depth of the groove measured while milling? Arkansas NA Colorado Manual checks at the end of day Michigan NA Minnesota Periodic checks by Inspectors Nebraska Regular checks during milling with a T-shaped tool Oregon Contractor was given a certain margin (details NA) Pennsylvania Roller cut the groove to required depth (margin of error permitted hence ok) Virginia On-board computer allows +/- 5% of groove depth for margin Wisconsin NA Wyoming NA 5 Does installation locations cover both rural and urban area? Arkansas NA Colorado Mostly rural Michigan NA Minnesota Rural (Speed limit> 55mph) Nebraska RS ,normally, not placed in urban environment Oregon NA Pennsylvania Meant for rural but used in urban settings too Virginia Both Wisconsin Rural Wyoming Rural NA: Implies that no response could be elicited for that question or the state could not be contacted. 89 APPENDIX D FILTER CONSTRUCTION IN CARE 90 APPENDIX D FILTER CONSTRUCTION IN CARE The logic for filter C as constructed in CARE was: (((((HIGHWAY CLASS==FEDERAL) | (HIGHWAY CLASS==STATE)) & (INTERSECTION==NOT INTRSCTN RELATED)) & (((INITIAL IMPACT - VEH C==HEAD ON CENTER) | (INITIAL IMPACT - VEH C==LEFT FRONT ANGLE)) | (INITIAL IMPACT - VEH C==BROADSIDE LEFT))) & (((SPEED LIMIT - VEH C==41-45 MPH) | (SPEED LIMIT - VEH C==46-50 MPH)) | (SPEED LIMIT - VEH C==51-55 MPH))) & (TRAFFIC LANES - UNIT C==TWO LANES) Where: | = OR logic & = AND logic UNIT C /VEH C= Driver or vehicle that caused the crash according to the police officer. 91 APPENDIX E LIST OF SEGMENTS WARRANTING CLRS INSTALLATIONS 92 APPENDIX E LIST OF SEGMENTS WARRANTING CRS INSTALLATION Sl no. County City Link Node 1 Node 2 Description 1 Description 2 Beginning Milepost Ending Milepost Fatal Injury PDO Total 1 MADISON MADISON RURAL S-53 7570 7587 ARDMORE HWY at JEFF RD ARDMORE HWY at BURWELL RD 327.4 330.2 1 27 106 134 2 TUSCALOOSA NORTHPORT S-13 887 888 AL 13 US 43 at CITY ST 1801 & CL NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 205.04 205.36 0 13 62 75 3 LEE OPELIKA S-169 141 1180 MATTHEWS ST at S169 S169 CRAWFORD RD at CORPORATE LIMIT NA NA 0 18 43 61 4 MOBILE MOBILE RURAL S-16 7749 7753 PADGETT SWITCH RD CO 81 at SR 16 US 90 MURRAY HILL RD at US HWY 90 SR-16 8.5 18 0 11 48 59 5 SHELBY PELHAM S-261 522 524 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 4 5.84 0 5 54 59 6 WALKER JASPER S-4 81 83 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 64.14 64.57 0 6 51 57 7 CULLMAN CULLMAN S-157 9182 9184 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 1.91 1.97 0 9 47 56 8 DEKALB FORT PAYNE S-7 65 1073 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 233.05 233.41 0 10 44 54 9 SHELBY PELHAM S-261 500 522 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 5.69 5.84 0 6 47 53 10 MOBILE MOBILE RURAL S-42 8706 8820 MOFFAT RD US HWY 98 at SNOW RD ED GEORGE RD CO 581 at SR 42 US 98 MOFFAT RD 9 12 1 16 35 52 11 TUSCALOOSA NORTHPORT S-13 880 882 AL 13 US 43 at FLATWOODS RD 1286 AL 13 US 43 at CITY ST 5388 & CL 204.2 204.68 0 15 33 48 12 AUTAUGA AUTAUGA RURAL S-6 7352 7353 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 132.21 136.1 1 14 31 46 13 SHELBY PELHAM S-261 79 524 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 5.91 - 5.84 5.91 0 1 45 46 14 CULLMAN CULLMAN S-157 1358 9182 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 1.97 2.09 0 7 38 45 15 MONTGOMERY MONTGOMERY S-3 4725 4742 MOBILE HWY SR-3 US 31 at WEST BLVD - ESTATE AVE at WEST BLVD SR-3 US- 31 179.68 180.43 0 9 35 44 93 Sl no. County City Link Node 1 Node 2 Description 1 Description 2 Beginning Milepost Ending Milepost Fatal Injury PDO Total 16 CALHOUN CALHOUN RURAL S-204 7223 7259 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 0.25 0.3 1 14 28 43 17 SHELBY PELHAM S-261 370 657 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 4.94 5.33 0 10 32 42 18 SAINT CLAIR MOODY S-25 98 7912 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 173.63 174.57 0 11 31 42 19 WALKER JASPER S-4 83 92 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 64.56 65.11 0 3 38 41 20 SHELBY SHELBY RURAL S-119 7979 7980 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 21 23.8 0 5 36 41 21 MOBILE MOBILE RURAL S-16 7748 7749 US HWY 90 ALA 16 at FOWL RIVER BRIDGE PADGETT SWITCH RD CO 81 at SR 16 US 90 9.7 14.7 0 12 28 40 22 CLEBURNE CLEBURNE RURAL S-1 7665 7833 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 213.1 220.9 1 19 17 37 23 CHILTON CHILTON RURAL S-22 7583 7666 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 59.3 63.6 1 8 27 36 24 RUSSELL RUSSELL RU S-8 7506 7539 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 206.6 210.9 4 12 20 36 25 MOBILE MOBILE RURAL S-217 8862 11688 COLEMAN DAIRY RD CO 758 at SR 217 LOTT RD BOX RD CO 748 at SR 217 LOTT RD 10.5 11.5 0 11 25 36 26 JEFFERSON HOOVER S-150 148 9419 BESSEMER CUT-OFF RD at RIVER CHASE DR NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 11.19 11.43 0 7 28 35 27 BUTLER GREENVILLE S-245 409 411 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 1.21 1.58 0 6 28 34 28 ELMORE WETUMPKA S-14 300 337 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NA NA 0 7 27 34 29 COOSA COOSA RURAL S-38 7389 7390 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 61.8 63.2 0 13 20 33 30 SHELBY ALABASTER S-119 7501 7503 COUNTY ROAD 26 at MONTEVALLO RD SR119 N JCT COUNTY ROAD 26 at MONTEVALLO RD SR119 S JCT 10.18 10.37 0 11 22 33 31 AUTAUGA AUTAUGA RURAL S-3 7516 7520 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 186.42 186.87 0 9 24 33 32 SHELBY PELHAM S-261 468 500 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 5.42 5.85 0 0 32 32 94 Sl no. County City Link Node 1 Node 2 Description 1 Description 2 Beginning Milepost Ending Milepost Fatal Injury PDO Total 34 MONTGOMERY MONTGOMERY RURAL S-3 7398 7403 ALABAMA HWY 3 US- 31 at I-65 INTERCHANGE ALABAMA HWY 3 US- 31 at FICSHER RD 175.74 178.98 2 6 23 31 35 SAINT CLAI ST. CLAIR S-53 7423 7527 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 221.5 227 0 7 24 31 36 DALLAS DALLAS RURAL S-41 7497 7709 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 120.5 123.15 1 5 25 31 37 MOBILE MOBILE RURAL S-16 7868 12626 TUNG AVE N at US HWY 90 SR-16 BROADVIEW DR W at US HWY 90 SR-16 10.1 18.5 0 7 24 31 38 PIKE PIKE RURAL S-87 7110 7228 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 50 57.4 0 8 22 30 39 DEKALB FORT PAYNE S-7 180 1073 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 232.59 233.06 1 4 25 30 40 COOSA COOSA RURAL S-22 7769 7786 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 104.7 107.1 0 14 16 30 41 TUSCALOOSA TUSCALOOSA RURAL S-6 7765 7816 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 32.9 37.6 0 11 19 30 42 COLBERT MUSCLE SHOALS S-133 493 979 ALA 133 & WILSON DAM HWY at AVALON AVE ALA 133 & WILSON DAM HWY at BLAINE ST 3.26 3.53 0 7 23 30 43 GENEVA GENEVA RURAL S-52 188 7515 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 39.7 45.5 0 12 18 30 44 TUSCALOOSA NORTHPORT S-13 888 889 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE AL 13 US 43 at CITY ST 1749 & CL 205.04 205.57 0 8 21 29 45 WALKER WALKER RURAL S-257 8560 8902 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 3.4 6.1 0 6 23 29 46 AUTAUGA AUTAUGA RURAL S-6 7351 7352 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 131.8 142 1 11 17 29 47 WALKER WALKER RURAL S-69 8292 8302 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 209.9 214.6 1 16 12 29 48 MONTGOMERY MONTGOMERY RURAL S-9 7416 7418 ALABAMA HWY 9 US- 331 at TEAGUE RD SNOWDOUN CHAMBERS RD at SR-9 US-331 95 99.43 0 9 20 29 49 LIMESTONE ATHENS S-127 8 122 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 1.48 2.09 0 8 20 28 50 ELMORE ELMORE RURAL S-14 8078 8083 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 164.3 168.7 0 6 22 28 95 County City Link Node 1 Node 2 Description 1 Description 2 Beginning Milepost Ending Milepost Fatal Injury PDO Total 51 ELMORE MILLSBROOK S-14 8415 8664 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NA NA 0 12 16 28 52 BALDWIN SPANISH FO S-225 8743 14944 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 0.14 1 0 7 21 28 53 ETOWAH ETOWAH RURAL S-179 7169 7172 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 4.6 7.2 0 13 15 28 54 RUSSELL RUSSELL RU S-1 7355 7838 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 98.09 98.78 0 7 21 28 55 MADISON MADISON RURAL S-53 7593 9564 ARDMORE HWY at KELLY SPRING RD NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 325.4 327.2 0 3 25 28 56 MONTGOMERY MONTGOMERY RURAL S-3 7375 7383 ALABAMA HWY 3 US- 31 at MCGEHEE RD ALABAMA HWY 3 US- 31 at RUDDER RD 0.7 1.74 0 5 23 28 57 MONTGOMERY MONTGOMERY S-3 2283 3098 WEST BLVD SR-3 US- 31 at B'HAM HWY MONEY RD at WEST BLVD 183.31 183.86 0 8 19 27 58 LEE LEE RURAL S-15 7124 7125 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 179.2 198 0 10 17 27 59 AUTAUGA PRATTVILLE S-14 57 140 WASHINGTON FERRY RD at SR 14 DEER TRACE ST at SR 14 152 155 1 11 15 27 60 LEE LEE RURAL S-38 7189 7200 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 101.1 112.5 0 5 22 27 61 MOBILE MOBILE RURAL S-188 7436 7439 ALABAMA HWY 188 at GRAND GARDENS DR SE JCT ALABAMA HWY 188 at FOUR MILE RD 4.5 7 1 14 11 26 62 CULLMAN CULLMAN S-157 9182 9190 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 0.99 1.97 0 4 22 26 63 BALDWIN BALDWIN RURAL S-42 7485 7486 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 61.5 75.5 0 5 21 26 64 MOBILE SARALAND S-158 121 413 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 2.83 4.31 0 8 18 26 65 CHEROKEE CHEROKEE RURAL S-9 7703 7742 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 264.6 269.3 1 14 10 25 66 BLOUNT BLOUNT RURAL S-3 7523 7534 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NA NA 1 11 13 25 67 PERRY PERRY RURAL S-219 7234 7440 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 11.5 15.4 0 13 12 25 68 DALLAS DALLAS RURAL S-14 7183 7187 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 118 120.25 0 9 16 25 96 County City Link Node 1 Node 2 Description 1 Description 2 Beginning Milepost Ending Milepost Fatal Injury PDO Total 69 ETOWAH RAINBOW CI S-77 141 448 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NA NA 0 6 19 25 71 CHILTON CLANTON S-3 18 35 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 224.47 225.23 0 9 16 25 72 JEFFERSON HOOVER S-150 10133 15987 NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE NO DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE 8.09 8.61 0 5 20 25 73 JEFFERSON HOOVER S-150 15139 15978 INTERSTATE 459 at SR-150 INTERCHANGE BESSEMER CUT-OFF RD at SHADES CREST RD 8.09 8.7 0 5 20 25 97 APPENDIX F CRASH RATES ON INDIVIDUAL SEGMENTS 98 APPENDIX F CRASH RATES ON CANDIDATE SEGMENTS Sl No State Route, City, County AADT 1994 AADT 1995 AADT 1996 AADT 1997 AADT 1998 AADT 1999 AADT 2000 AADT 2001 AADT 2002 AADT 2003 T o t al AADT # Days in a year Total # of veh Seg ln (mi) # Crashes on the segment CRASH RATE 1 S53, Madison Rural, Madison 10070 10450 11240 11070 12760 13500 13380 13340 13400 13870 123080 365 44924200 2.8 134 1.07 2 S13, Northport, Tuscaloosa 8220 8360 8720 9530 9290 9400 8890 9900 10430 10290 93030 365 33955950 0.32 75 6.90 3 S16, Mobile Rur, Mobile 6280 6470 6540 6880 7260 7180 7330 6950 7550 7410 9440 9630 10040 10550 11030 10810 11180 10620 10960 10930 12010 12360 12930 13540 14090 13920 14140 13790 13410 13540 14770 15300 16040 16740 17360 17280 17290 16510 15960 16310 26450 27220 27280 28130 28960 29250 29170 28120 24660 28520 29990 30440 31440 32290 33190 31360 31390 30300 28610 28370 29370 29010 27740 28750 29600 28770 29010 30470 31300 32120 Average AADT 18330 18633 18859 19554 20213 19796 19930 19537 18921 19600 193373 365 70581093 9.5 59 0.09 4 S261, Pelham, Shelby 13420 14250 14620 16360 13790 17760 18340 17120 18410 18280 162350 365 59257750 1.84 59 0.54 5 S4, Jasper, Walker 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10390 10520 20910 365 7632150 0.42 57 17.78 6 S7, Fort Payne, Dekalb 5630 5760 5380 5380 6170 6160 6260 6240 6410 6410 59800 365 21827000 0.36 54 6.87 7 S157, Cullman, Cullman 7580 10760 11150 11350 11940 11700 11570 11630 12270 11810 111760 365 40792400 0.06 56 22.88 8 S42, Mobile Rur, Mobile 18290 17710 17440 16730 16980 16840 16750 16830 16570 17110 171250 365 62506250 3.9 52 0.21 99 Sl No State Route, City, County AADT 1994 AADT 1995 AADT 1996 AADT 1997 AADT 1998 AADT 1999 AADT 2000 AADT 2001 AADT 2002 AADT 2003 T o t al AADT # Days in a year Total # of veh Seg ln (miles) # Crashes on the segment CRASH RATE 9 S6 Autaga, Autaga Rural 4600 5400 5010 4780 4990 5300 5230 6010 5970 5950 6010 6880 6410 6370 6620 6120 6100 7150 7100 7070 4180 4270 4410 4400 4890 5270 4980 5440 5480 5580 5910 5960 6250 6240 6770 7150 7090 7960 8010 7370 10370 10400 10530 10510 11320 12200 12660 14580 15460 14500 10660 10660 11110 11390 12560 13490 14000 15650 14630 13830 Average AADT 6955 7262 7287 7282 7858 8255 8343 9465 9442 9050 81198 365 29637392 10.2 46 0.15 10 S157, Cullman, Cullman 7580 10760 11150 11350 11940 11700 11570 11630 12270 11810 111760 365 40792400 0.12 45 9.19 11 S3, Montgomery, Montgomery 15240 16400 16430 16530 16680 15890 15700 15240 15490 14670 158270 365 57768550 0.74 44 1.03 12 S204, Calhoun Rur, Calhoun 4360 4380 4570 4650 5010 5030 5300 5140 5080 5350 48870 365 17837550 1.88 43 1.28 13 S261, Pelham, Shelby 13420 14250 14620 16360 13790 17760 18340 17120 18410 18280 162350 365 59257750 0.38 42 1.87 14 S 25, Moody,Saint Claire 16480 16760 16850 17290 18470 18680 18670 18320 18350 18650 178520 365 65159800 0.93 42 0.69 15 S 119, Shelby Rur,Shelby 6590 7790 8180 9370 9990 9830 11970 12230 11780 12760 10200 11500 12070 13040 13410 13240 15680 15900 15330 18900 Average AADT 8395 9645 10125 11205 11700 11535 13825 14065 13555 15830 119880 365 43756200 2.8 41 0.33 16 S 16,Mobile Rur, Mobile 6280 6470 6540 6880 7260 7180 7330 6950 7550 7410 9440 9630 10040 10550 11030 10810 11180 10620 10960 10930 12010 12360 12930 13540 14090 13920 14140 13790 13410 13540 14770 15300 16040 16740 17360 17280 17290 16510 15960 16310 Average AADT 12073 12430 13003 13610 14160 14003 14203 13640 13443 13593 134160 365 48968400 5 40 0.16 100 Sl No . State Route, City, County AADT 1994 AADT 1995 AADT 1996 AADT 1997 AADT 1998 AADT 1999 AADT 2000 AADT 2001 AADT 2002 AADT 2003 T o t al AADT # Days in a year Total # of veh Seg ln (miles) # Crashes on the segment CRASH RATE 17 S1, Celeburne Rur, Celeburne 5280 5450 5550 5550 5790 5830 5880 6270 6190 6430 5500 5600 5840 5830 6250 6140 6190 5070 6590 6710 5390 5525 5695 5690 6020 5985 6035 5670 6390 6570 Average AADT 5390 5525 5695 5690 6020 5985 6035 5670 6390 6570 58970 365 21524050 7.8 37 0.22 18 S 22, Chilton Rur, Chilton 3000 3180 2990 3180 3400 3470 3360 3650 3190 3780 4180 4400 4000 4420 4580 4720 4640 4960 4550 5190 Average AADT 3590 3790 3495 3800 3990 4095 4000 4305 3870 4485 39420 365 14388300 4.3 36 0.58 19 S 8, Russel Rur, Russel 7650 7880 7850 7820 7960 8070 8130 8160 8250 8500 12650 12750 13250 13250 13390 13270 13440 13500 13430 13830 Average AADT 10150 10315 10550 10535 10675 10670 10785 10830 10840 11165 106515 365 38877975 5.6 36 0.17 20 S 217, Mobile Rur, Mobile 8060 8790 8710 9270 9690 9860 9800 10800 10790 10940 96710 365 35299150 2 36 0.51 21 S 245, Greenville, Butler 8070 8570 8870 9570 9850 9510 9210 9060 9310 8740 90760 365 33127400 0.37 34 2.77 22 S 38, Coosa Rur, Coosa 13580 14460 13500 13050 14400 14520 14630 15100 15330 15560 144130 365 52607450 1.5 33 0.42 23 S 3, Autaga Rur, Autaga 5660 6280 6430 6830 7470 7810 7760 7760 7940 8310 72250 365 26371250 2 33 0.63 101 Sl No State Route, City, County AADT 1994 AADT 1995 AADT 1996 AADT 1997 AADT 1998 AADT 1999 AADT 2000 AADT 2001 AADT 2002 AADT 2003 T o t al AADT # Days in a year Total # of veh Seg ln (miles) # Crashes on the segment CRASH RATE 25 S 3, M'Gmry Rur, M'gmry 2600 2740 2550 3120 3160 3940 3520 3290 3050 3160 3660 3800 3690 4250 4300 5010 5070 4080 4270 4060 4210 4350 4210 4920 4970 5670 5690 4840 5140 4630 6350 6370 6200 6950 7010 7640 7610 7540 7980 7980 5340 5500 5530 5870 6270 6370 6280 6030 7540 7240 5210 5400 5430 6110 6540 6670 6550 6420 6570 6500 21350 21060 21100 21870 22570 22850 22650 22600 23130 23570 20030 20050 20090 17640 18270 16210 16040 17250 16940 13780 Average AADT 8594 8659 8600 8841 9136 9295 9176 9006 9328 8865 89500 365 32667500 13.9 31 0.07 27 S 53, St. Claire, St. Claire 6500 6840 6980 7210 7130 7260 7960 8600 8760 9060 3040 3140 3300 3450 3430 3590 3590 4040 3970 4180 Average AADT 4770 4990 5140 5330 5280 5425 5775 6320 6365 6620 56015 365 20445475 5.5 31 0.28 28 S 41, Dallas Rur, Dallas 9460 8800 9400 9540 9730 10670 9780 9300 8740 8880 4680 4450 4580 4930 5050 4870 4780 4500 4550 4610 Average AADT 7070 6625 6990 7235 7390 7770 7280 6900 6645 6745 70650 365 25787250 2.65 31 0.45 29 S 16, Mobile Rur, Mobile 9440 9630 10040 10550 11030 10810 11180 10620 10960 10930 12010 12360 12930 13540 14090 13920 14140 13790 13410 13540 14770 15300 16040 16740 17360 17280 17290 16510 15960 16310 26450 27220 27280 28130 28960 29250 29170 28120 24660 28520 29990 30440 31440 32290 33190 31360 31390 30300 28610 28370 29370 29010 27740 28750 29600 28770 29010 30470 31300 32120 Average AADT 20338 20660 20912 21667 22372 21898 22030 21635 20817 21632 213960 365 78095400 8.4 31 0.05 30 S 87, Pike Rur, Pike 1780 1970 1980 1990 2120 2160 2160 2030 2120 2270 2030 2230 2240 2250 2400 2470 2470 2350 2450 2650 6580 6730 6910 6610 7020 7920 7920 6820 6920 7420 Average AADT 4305 4480 4575 4430 4710 5195 5195 4585 4685 5035 47195 365 17226175 7.4 30 0.24 102 Sl No State Route, City, County AADT 1994 AADT 1995 AADT 1996 AADT 1997 AADT 1998 AADT 1999 AADT 2000 AADT 2001 AADT 2002 AADT 2003 T o t al AADT # Days in a year Total # of veh Seg ln (miles) # Crashes on the segment CRASH RATE 31 S 22, Coosa Rur, Coosa 2500 2520 2600 2810 2900 2930 2630 2580 2420 2400 26290 365 9595850 4.3 30 0.73 32 S 6, Tuscaloosa Rur, Tuscaloosa 11020 11190 12060 12060 13680 13320 13410 13650 13200 13300 9660 9820 10460 10460 11590 13020 13110 13170 12950 12700 Average AADT 10340 10505 11260 11260 12635 13170 13260 13410 13075 13000 121915 365 44498975 4.7 30 0.14 33 S 52, Geneva Rur, Geneva 4420 4330 4270 4260 4350 4580 4480 4180 4120 411 7470 6850 6730 6840 6980 7420 7290 7240 7230 6930 6660 6210 5980 5940 6060 6390 6040 5950 6010 5690 4890 4510 4320 4440 4520 4800 4500 4420 4470 4170 Average AADT 5860 5475 5325 5370 5478 5798 5578 5448 5458 4300 54088 365 19741938 5.8 30 0.26 34 S 13, Northport, Tuscaloosa 8220 8360 8720 9530 9290 9400 8890 9900 10430 10290 93030 365 33955950 0.52 29 1.64 35 S 257, Walker Rur, Walker 7280 7510 7400 7600 7910 8000 7890 7310 8710 9210 78820 365 28769300 2.7 29 0.37 36 S 6, Autaga Rur, Autaga 4600 5400 5010 4780 4990 5300 5230 6010 5970 5950 6010 6880 6410 6370 6620 6120 6100 7150 7100 7070 4180 4270 4410 4400 4890 5270 4980 5440 5480 5580 5910 5960 6250 6240 6770 7150 7090 7960 8010 7370 10370 10400 10530 10510 11320 12200 12660 14580 15460 14500 10660 10660 11110 11390 12560 13490 14000 15650 14630 13830 Average AADT 6955 7262 7287 7282 7858 8255 8343 9465 9442 9050 81198 365 29637392 2.55 29 0.38 103 Sl No State Route, City, County AADT 1994 AADT 1995 AADT 1996 AADT 1997 AADT 1998 AADT 1999 AADT 2000 AADT 2001 AADT 2002 AADT 2003 T o t al AADT # Days in a year Total # of veh Seg ln (miles) # Crashes on the segment CRASH RATE 37 S 69, Walker Rur, Walker 4690 5070 4830 4870 5150 5550 5110 4970 5120 5110 4440 4620 4590 4660 4930 5420 5120 4930 5090 5080 Average AADT 4565 4845 4710 4765 5040 5485 5115 4950 5105 5095 49675 365 18131375 4.7 29 0.34 38 S 9, M'gmry Rur, M'gmry 6900 7290 7720 7240 6890 6750 6220 6470 6110 6080 7690 8050 8630 8260 7920 7530 7080 7060 6660 7060 7690 8050 8630 8410 8110 7730 7010 7220 6650 7080 4820 5320 5660 5130 4940 4820 4560 4830 4210 4430 Average AADT 6775 7178 7660 7260 6965 6708 6218 6395 5908 6163 67228 365 24538038 4.43 29 0.27 39 S7 Fort Payne, Dekalb 5630 5760 5380 5380 6170 6160 6260 6240 6410 6410 59800 365 21827000 0.46 30 2.99 40 S 14, Elmore Rur, Elmore 5410 5720 6720 6680 6750 7580 7850 7220 7800 7890 6510 7030 8150 8570 8740 9680 10030 9210 9820 10380 Average AADT 5960 6375 7435 7625 7745 8630 8940 8215 8810 9135 78870 365 28787550 4.4 28 0.22 41 S 179, Etowah Rur, Etowah 2220 2480 2310 2540 2510 2470 2550 2290 2140 2220 23730 365 8661450 2.6 28 1.24 42 S 1, Russel Rur, Russel 8050 7990 7580 7670 8070 9170 10020 10410 10620 10560 6960 6610 6550 6510 7050 9160 8690 9310 9410 9610 7690 7020 7010 6960 7580 9100 8640 9140 9140 9790 Average AADT 7567 7207 7047 7047 7567 9143 9117 9620 9723 9987 84023 365 30668517 6.7 28 0.14 43 S 53, Madison Rur, Madison 10070 10450 11240 11070 12760 13500 13380 13340 13400 13870 123080 365 44924200 2.8 28 0.22 44 S 3, Montgomery Rur, Montgomery 3660 3800 3690 4250 4300 5010 5070 4080 4270 4060 4210 4350 4210 4920 4970 5670 5690 4840 5140 4630 6350 6370 6200 6950 7010 7640 7610 7540 7980 7980 Average AADT 4740 4840 4700 5373 5427 6107 6123 5487 5797 5557 54150 365 19764750 8.44 28 0.17 104 Sl No State Route, City, County AADT 1994 AADT 1995 AADT 1996 AADT 1997 AADT 1998 AADT 1999 AADT 2000 AADT 2001 AADT 2002 AADT 2003 T o t al AADT # Days in a year Total # of veh Seg ln (miles) # Crashes on the segment CRASH RATE 45 S3, Montgomery, Montgomery 19730 20870 22200 23140 21650 21420 20620 20450 19510 18960 208550 365 76120750 0.55 27 0.64 46 S 15, Lee Rur, Lee 4140 4250 4350 4530 4960 5260 5310 5140 5230 5200 4610 4740 4930 4760 5310 5190 5220 4990 5120 5130 Average AADT 4375 4495 4640 4645 5135 5225 5265 5065 5175 5165 49185 365 17952525 18.8 27 0.08 47 S14, Pratville, Autaga 9720 9380 9180 9320 9130 8570 8740 8590 8440 8570 10370 9850 9570 10250 10050 9460 9730 9390 9200 9360 22060 21930 23150 24310 23880 21610 20420 21570 22310 21820 Average AADT 14050 13720 13967 14627 14353 13213 12963 13183 13317 13250 136643 365 49874816.7 3 27 0.18 48 S 38, Lee Rur, Lee 9340 9290 9420 9600 9720 10770 11780 11470 12310 12110 7700 7140 7290 7350 7460 7780 8600 8340 9120 8870 8750 8550 9170 9400 9520 9860 10260 10490 11310 11610 6170 5760 6540 6560 6650 7740 7640 8090 9190 9000 Average AADT 7990 7685 8105 8227.5 8337.5 9037.5 9570 9597.5 10483 10398 89430 365 32641950 11.4 27 0.07 49 S 188, Mobile Rur, Mobile 5730 6300 5670 5790 5790 7140 6580 7080 6740 6610 63430 365 23151950 2.5 26 0.45 50 S 157, Cullman,Cullman 7580 10760 11150 11350 11940 11700 11570 11630 12270 11810 111760 365 40792400 0.98 26 0.65 51 S 42, Baldwin Rur, Baldwin 7730 7770 8130 8130 8570 8770 8940 9390 10130 9970 7410 7450 7490 7490 7570 7810 7620 7570 8380 8340 8020 8030 8210 8430 8920 9180 8420 8340 8570 8790 8530 8750 9390 9610 10170 10450 10490 10340 10620 10900 8260 8520 8200 8420 8830 9030 8910 8910 9150 9390 7350 7630 7870 8090 8390 8500 8470 8560 8790 9020 Average AADT 7883 8025 8215 8362 8742 8957 8808 8852 9273 9402 86518 365 31579192 14 26 0.06 105 Sl No State Route, City, County AADT 1994 AADT 1995 AADT 1996 AADT 1997 AADT 1998 AADT 1999 AADT 2000 AADT 2001 AADT 2002 AADT 2003 T o t al AADT # Days in a year Total # of veh Seg ln (miles) # Crashes on the segment CRASH RATE 51 S 9, Cherokee Rur, Cherokee 3890 4370 4530 4330 4450 4630 4800 4510 4380 4050 4870 5370 5620 5510 5770 5780 5860 5880 6030 5580 Average AADT 4380 4870 5075 4920 5110 5205 5330 5195 5205 4815 50105 365 18288325 4.7 25 0.29 52 S 3, Blount Rur, Blount 3050 3240 3580 3820 3980 3800 3770 3310 3500 3290 35340 365 12899100 3.1 25 0.63 53 S 219, Perry Rur, Perry 900 920 980 900 970 970 980 970 1100 980 9670 365 3529550 4.25 25 1.67 54 S 14, Dallas Rur, Dallas 7320 7690 7680 7040 7700 7550 7950 8320 7860 7790 76900 365 28068500 2.25 25 0.40 55 S 3, Clanton, Chilton 8380 8620 8990 8640 9020 8830 9250 8260 8700 9740 88430 365 32276950 0.76 25 1.02 106 APPENDIX G SEGMENT PRIORITIZATION BY CRASH RATE 107 APPENDIX G SEGMENT PRIORITIZATION BY CRASH RATES Sl. No Segment # County City State Route Seg ln (miles) Crash rate 1 7 Cullman Cullman S-157 0.06 22.88 2 6 Walker Jasper S-4 0.42 17.78 3 14 Cullman Cullman S-157 0.12 9.19 4 2 Tuscaloosa Northport S-13 0.32 6.90 5 8 Dekalb Fort Payne S-7 0.36 6.87 6 39 Dekalb Fort Payne S-7 0.46 2.99 7 27 Butler Greenville S-245 0.37 2.77 8 49 Limestone Athens S-127 0.61 2.01 9 17 Shelby Pelham S-261 0.38 1.87 10 67 Perry Perry Rural S219 4.25 1.67 11 44 Tuscaloosa Northport S13 0.52 1.64 12 16 Calhoun Calhoun Rural S204 1.88 1.28 13 53 Etowah Etowah Rural S 179 2.6 1.24 14 1 Madison Madison Rural S53 2.8 1.07 15 15 Montgomery Montgomery S3 0.74 1.03 16 71 Chilton Clanton S3 0.76 1.02 17 40 Coosa Coosa Rural S 22 4.3 0.73 18 18 Saint Claire Moody S25 0.93 0.69 19 62 Cullman Cullman S157 0.98 0.65 20 57 Montgomery Montgomery S3 0.55 0.64 21 31 Autaga Autaga Rural S3 2 0.63 22 66 Blount Blount Rural S3 3.1 0.63 23 23 Chilton Chilton Rural S 22 4.3 0.58 24 5 Shelby Pelham S261 1.84 0.54 25 25 Mobile Mobile Rural S 217 2 0.51 26 36 Dallas Dallas Rural S 41 2.65 0.45 27 61 Mobile Mobile Rural S 188 2.5 0.45 28 29 Coosa Coosa Rural S 38 1.5 0.42 29 68 Dallas Dallas Rural S14 2.25 0.40 30 46 Autaga Autaga Rural S 6 2.55 0.38 31 45 Walker Walker Rural S 257 2.7 0.37 32 47 Walker S 69 Walker Rural S 69 4.7 0.34 33 59 Autaga Pratville S14 3 0.34 34 20 Shelby Shelby Rural S119 2.8 0.33 35 65 Cherokee Cherokee Rural S9 4.7 0.29 108 Sl. No Segment # County City State Route Seg ln (miles) Crash rate 36 35 St. Claire St. Claire S53 5.5 0.28 37 48 M'gmry Montgomery Rural S-48 4.43 0.27 38 43 Geneva Geneva Rural S-52 5.8 0.26 39 38 Pike Pike Rural S-87 7.4 0.24 40 55 MadiSon Madison Rural S-53 2.8 0.22 41 50 Elmore Elmore Rural S-14 4.4 0.22 42 22 Celeburne Celeburne Rural S-1 7.8 0.22 43 10 Mobile Mobile Rural S-42 3.9 0.21 44 56 Montgomery Montgomery Rural S-3 8.44 0.17 45 24 Russel Russel Rural S-8 5.6 0.17 46 21 Mobile Mobile Rural S-16 5 0.16 47 12 Autaga Autaga Rural S-6 10.2 0.15 48 41 Tuscaloosa Tuscaloosa Rural S-6 4.7 0.14 49 54 Russel Russel Rural S-1 6.7 0.14 50 4 Mobile Mobile Rural S-16 9.5 0.09 51 58 Lee Lee Rural S-15 18.8 0.08 52 60 Lee Lee Rural S-38 11.4 0.07 53 34 Montgomery Montgomery Rural S-3 13.9 0.07 54 63 Baldwin Baldwin Rural S-42 14 0.06 55 37 Mobile Mobile Rural S-16 8.4 0.05 Total miles = 224.67 109 APPENDIX H BENEFIT TO COST RATIO CALCULATIONS 110 APPENDIX H BENEFIT TO COST RATIO CALCULATIONS BENEFITS Number of crashes on Segments without a countermeasure Expected # of crashes prevented with 14% reduction (14% reduction across all crash types) SAVINGS IN CRASH COSTS Sl No. County City Link Fatal Injury PDO Total Fatal Injury PDO Fatal Injury PDO Total 1 MADISON MADISO RURAL S-53 1 27 106 134 19 0 4 15 339697.04 167164.35 61002.82 567864.21 2 TUSCALOOSA NORTHPORT S-13 0 13 62 75 11 0 2 9 0.00 80486.54 35680.89 116167.43 3 MOBILE MOBILE RURAL S-16 0 11 48 59 8 0 2 7 0.00 68103.99 27623.92 95727.91 4 SHELBY PELHAM S-261 0 5 54 59 8 0 1 8 0.00 30956.36 31076.91 62033.27 5 WALKER JASPER S-4 0 6 51 57 8 0 1 7 0.00 37147.63 29350.41 66498.05 6 CULLMAN CULLMAN S-157 0 9 47 56 8 0 1 7 0.00 55721.45 27048.42 82769.87 7 DEKALB FORT PAYNE S-7 0 10 44 54 8 0 1 6 0.00 61912.72 25321.92 87234.65 8 MOBILE MOBILE RURAL S-42 1 16 35 52 7 0 2 5 339697.04 99060.35 20142.44 458899.84 9 AUTAUGA AUTAUGA RURAL S-6 1 14 31 46 6 0 2 4 339697.04 86677.81 17840.45 444215.30 10 CULLMAN CULLMAN S-157 0 7 38 45 6 0 1 5 0.00 43338.91 21868.93 65207.84 11 MONTGOMERY MONTGOMERY S-3 0 9 35 44 6 0 1 5 0.00 55721.45 20142.44 75863.89 12 CALHOUN CALHOU RURAL S-204 1 14 28 43 6 0 2 4 339697.04 86677.81 16113.95 442488.81 13 SHELBY PELHAM S-261 0 10 32 42 6 0 1 4 0.00 61912.72 18415.94 80328.67 14 SAINT CLAI MOODY S-25 0 11 31 42 6 0 2 4 0.00 68103.99 17840.45 85944.44 15 SHELBY SHELBY RURAL S-119 0 5 36 41 6 0 1 5 0.00 30956.36 20717.94 51674.30 16 MOBILE MOBILE RURAL S-16 0 12 28 40 6 0 2 4 0.00 74295.27 16113.95 90409.22 17 CLEBURNE CLEBUR RURAL S-1 1 19 17 37 5 0 3 2 339697.04 117634.17 9783.47 467114.69 18 CHILTON CHILTO RURAL S-22 1 8 27 36 5 0 1 4 339697.04 49530.18 15538.45 404765.68 19 RUSSELL RUSSELL RURAL S-8 4 12 20 36 5 1 2 3 1358788.18 74295.27 11509.97 1444593.41 20 MOBILE MOBILE RURAL S-217 0 11 25 36 5 0 2 4 0.00 68103.99 14387.46 82491.45 21 BUTLER GREENVILLE S-245 0 6 28 34 5 0 1 4 0.00 37147.63 16113.95 53261.58 22 COOSA COOSA RURAL S-38 0 13 20 33 5 0 2 3 0.00 80486.54 11509.97 91996.50 23 AUTAUGA AUTAUG RURAL S-3 0 9 24 33 5 0 1 3 0.00 55721.45 13811.96 69533.41 24 MONTGOMERY MONTGO RURAL S-3 2 6 23 31 4 0 1 3 679394.09 37147.63 13236.46 729778.18 25 SAINT CLAIRE ST. CLAIR S-53 0 7 24 31 4 0 1 3 0.00 43338.91 13811.96 57150.86 111 BENEFITS Number of crashes on Segments without a countermeasure Expected number of total crashes prevented with 14% reduction (14% reduction across all crash types) SAVINGS IN CRASH COSTS Sl No. County City Link Fatal Injury PDO Total Fatal Injury PDO Fatal Injury PDO Total 26 DALLAS DALLAS RURAL S-41 1 5 25 31 4 0 1 4 339697.04 30956.36 14387.46 385040.86 27 MOBILE MOBILE RURAL S-16 0 7 24 31 4 0 1 3 0.00 43338.91 13811.96 57150.86 28 PIKE PIKE RURAL S-87 0 8 22 30 4 0 1 3 0.00 49530.18 12660.96 62191.14 29 DEKALB FORT PAYNE S-7 1 4 25 30 4 0 1 4 339697.04 24765.09 14387.46 378849.59 30 COOSA COOSA RURAL S-22 0 14 16 30 4 0 2 2 0.00 86677.81 9207.97 95885.78 31 TUSCALOOSA TUSCAL RURAL S-6 0 11 19 30 4 0 2 3 0.00 68103.99 10934.47 79038.46 32 GENEVA GENEVA RURAL S-52 0 12 18 30 4 0 2 3 0.00 74295.27 10358.97 84654.23 33 TUSCALOOSA NORTHPORT S-13 0 8 21 29 4 0 1 3 0.00 49530.18 12085.46 61615.64 34 WALKER WALKER RURAL S-257 0 6 23 29 4 0 1 3 0.00 37147.63 13236.46 50384.09 35 AUTAUGA AUTAUG RURAL S-6 1 11 17 29 4 0 2 2 339697.04 68103.99 9783.47 417584.51 36 WALKER WALKER RURAL S-69 1 16 12 29 4 0 2 2 339697.04 99060.35 6905.98 445663.38 37 MONTGOMERY MONTGO RURAL S-9 0 9 20 29 4 0 1 3 0.00 55721.45 11509.97 67231.41 38 LIMESTONE ATHENS S-127 0 8 20 28 4 0 1 3 0.00 49530.18 11509.97 61040.14 39 ELMORE ELMORE RURAL S-14 0 6 22 28 4 0 1 3 0.00 37147.63 12660.96 49808.60 40 ETOWAH ETOWAH RURAL S-179 0 13 15 28 4 0 2 2 0.00 80486.54 8632.47 89119.01 41 RUSSELL RUSSELL RU S-1 0 7 21 28 4 0 1 3 0.00 43338.91 12085.46 55424.37 42 MADISON MADISO RURAL S-53 0 3 25 28 4 0 0 4 0.00 18573.82 14387.46 32961.27 43 MONTGOMERY MONTGO RURAL S-3 0 5 23 28 4 0 1 3 0.00 30956.36 13236.46 44192.82 44 MONTGOMERY MONTGOMERY S-3 0 8 19 27 4 0 1 3 0.00 49530.18 10934.47 60464.64 45 LEE LEE RURAL S-15 0 10 17 27 4 0 1 2 0.00 61912.72 9783.47 71696.19 46 AUTAUGA PRATTVILLE S-14 1 11 15 27 4 0 2 2 339697.04 68103.99 8632.47 416433.51 47 LEE LEE RURAL S-38 0 5 22 27 4 0 1 3 0.00 30956.36 12660.96 43617.32 48 MOBILE MOBILE RURAL S-188 1 14 11 26 4 0 2 2 339697.04 86677.81 6330.48 432705.34 49 CULLMAN CULLMAN S-157 0 4 22 26 4 0 1 3 0.00 24765.09 12660.96 37426.05 50 BALDWIN BALDWI RURAL S-42 0 5 21 26 4 0 1 3 0.00 30956.36 12085.46 43041.82 51 CHEROKEE CHEROK RURAL S-9 1 14 10 25 4 0 2 1 339697.04 86677.81 5754.98 432129.84 52 BLOUNT BLOUNT RURAL S-3 1 11 13 25 4 0 2 2 339697.04 68103.99 7481.48 415282.52 112 BENEFITS Number of crashes on Segments without a countermeasure Expected number of total crashes prevented with 14% reduction (14% reduction across all crash types) SAVINGS IN CRASH COSTS Sl No. County City Link Fatal Injury PDO Total Fatal Injury PDO Fatal Injury PDO Total 53 PERRY PERRY RURAL S-219 0 13 12 25 4 0 2 2 0.00 80486.54 6905.98 87392.52 54 DALLAS DALLAS RURAL S-14 0 9 16 25 4 0 1 2 0.00 55721.45 9207.97 64929.42 55 CHILTON CLANTON S-3 0 9 16 25 4 0 1 2 0.00 55721.45 9207.97 64929.42 TOTALS 6793940.90 3126592.43 824113.54 10744646.87 Total cost of instllation @ $0.55/ L.F. (C)= 652441.68 Total cost saved in terms of crashes prevented ($) or Benefit (B) = B/C = 16.47 It is assumed that crash severity does not change on a segment, across the ten years (1994 to 2003) and across the crash types for the entire analysis period 113