Low Cost Safety Improvements Pooled Fund Study Meeting Minutes, 01/23/06 5:30 pm (TRB Week)

1) Basic update of study

Participating States: 26-AZ, CA, CT, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, MA, MD, MN, MS, MT, NC, ND, NY, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA

2) Task Order 1 (scoping study and study designs) soon to be completed

Previously Completed Activities: The following activities have been completed and provide background information for current activities. Early in 2005 the participating states prioritized the improvements (from NCHRP 500 Guidebooks, Volumes 1-6) for evaluation and from this prioritized list the contractors determined which improvements are ready for evaluation (based upon the availability of installation and crash data). The highly ranked strategies are as follows (in order of ranking):

• Install edgeline "profile marking," edgeline rumble strips or modified shoulder rumble strips on section with narrow or no paved shoulders
• Enhanced shoulder or in-lane delineation and marking for sharp curves
• Provide enhanced pavement markings
• Alternate passing lanes or four-lane sections at key locations to prevent head-on crashes
• Flashing beacons at stop controlled intersections
• Center two-way left-turn lanes for four- and two-lane roads
• Median barriers for narrow-width medians on multilane roads to prevent head-on crashes
• Bypass lanes on shoulders at T-intersections
• Combination of lane width versus shoulders
• Pavement markings with supplementary messages, such as "stop ahead"
• Install profiled thermoplastic strips for centerlines
• Narrow "buffer median" on two-lane roadways
• Roadside markers or pavement markings for gap assistance
• Target (manual) enforcement for aggressive driving combined with educational and public information
• Offset left-turn lanes at intersections
• Stops signs with increased retroreflectivity
• Automated warning signs when driver too fast for curve (particularly for trucks)
• Left turn acceleration lanes at divided highway intersections
• Intersection lighting intensity
• Longer right-turn lanes at intersections
• Wider cross sections on two-lane roads
• Indirect left-turn treatments to minimize conflicts at divided highway intersections
• Use shoulder for right turn lane
• Lane assignment signing or marking at complex intersections
• Enhanced guardrail reflectors
• Target (automated) enforcement for aggressive driving combined with educational and public information
• Midlane rumble strips
• Offset right turn lanes at intersections
• Change horizontal and/or vertical alignment of approaches

Current Activities: Activities to date on the pooled fund study are as follows. The contractor is finalizing study designs for the higher priority improvements and finalizing the collection of information on the current and past implementation of those treatments. This information will allow retrospective studies to be performed on the measures that have already been implemented (and have sufficient data) in addition to prospective studies of countermeasures that will be implemented in the near future.

3) Task Order 2 (evaluation of four strategies) has begun

At this time there are four ranked countermeasures that have sufficient retrospective (installation and crash) data for evaluations:

• Flashing beacons at stop controlled intersections
• Higher retro-reflectivity sheeting for stop signs
• Center two-way left turn lanes for four and two-lane roads (2- to 3-lane conversions)
• Pavement markings with supplementary messages such as "stop ahead"

The evaluations of these 4 countermeasures to determine the crash reduction factors (CRFs) will be completed by early 2007.

4) Database update

One of the products of the Low Cost Safety Improvements Pooled Fund Study is a database developed for all to use to capture data regarding the installation of safety countermeasures. Often safety countermeasures are installed without any (easily obtained) record of dates, locations, or initial conditions. This information is crucial to perform evaluations, which has proved to be the most challenging part of our project thus far (capturing these data). The purpose of the databases is to allow people to easily and concisely capture the data for potential future evaluations.

Three formats of databases have been produced (and the databases are named appropriately) to accommodate different location referencing systems: GIS based systems, Link-Node based systems, and Logmile/milepost based systems. Use whichever database matches the type of measurement system that your agency uses. The databases are created in both Microsoft Excel and Access formats. The Access format allows more pull down menus and options, but the Excel database is set up in a very similar format to the Access database. There is a "readme.doc" file that can help walk users through entering data into the databases. The databases can also be customized to include additional strategies that are used in your state or can be expanded to include additional information.

Please take time to look at these databases, as hopefully they will help you to capture the appropriate installation and conditional data needed for evaluations. Again, without capturing these data (time and location of the safety strategy's installation and some of the basic conditions prior to installation), it is very difficult to do evaluations to determine the effectiveness of the safety countermeasures used. This project would like to evaluate as many safety countermeasures as possible, but is limited by the available installation data for the safety strategies; we all need to be responsible in making sure these data are captured and preserved.

5) Future Activities/Meetings

Future activities: The technical advisory committee (TAC) will meet in Washington, DC during the summer (June) of 2006. The objectives are to update the TAC on the project's current status and to collect installation data (from the states) for the next group of countermeasures to be evaluated.

Balloting for the next set of guidebooks will be done remotely during the second half of March. The TAC will have two weeks to send in their ballot giving their top ten strategies for evaluation. After all votes are tallied, the TAC will be sent the resulting "Top 30" list of strategies. In preparation for the summer meeting, we will ask the TAC to provide installation data for 5-10 strategies that they have implemented (the most often) on the prioritized list of strategies.

6) Further Discussion

Questions for the group included the following (consensus answers in italics):

How many people are checking the website for updates?

People are not checking often, but has been brought to attention so it will be checked more often.

How many copies of CD per state?

1 copy can be sent to the TAC contact person, and they will distribute as needed.

How else to promote use of CDs? (i.e. NCHRP 17-18 promotion efforts)

Reach out to groups such as SCOHTS, GHSA annual meeting, AASHTO, ITE & TRB committee's, NACE, HSIS states, the State Safety Engineers listserve