 |
Low Cost Safety Improvements Pooled Fund Study Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Notes
Wednesday March 18, 2009, and Thursday March 19, 2009
National Highway Institute
Day 1: Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Welcome, Introduction, and Objectives for Meeting
- Dr. Ray Krammes (FHWA) and Roya Amjadi (FHWA) greeted the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The State Committee Members introduced themselves.
SafetyAnalyst and Highway Safety Manual
- Dr. Ray Krammes gave a presentation on SafetyAnalyst and the Highway Safety Manual. On March 31, 2009, TRB/NCHRP will deliver the 1st Edition of the Manual to AASHTO to go through the process to get the manual published as an AASHTO publication. Information on the manual can be found at www.highwaysafetymanual.org. Effective July 1, 2009 FHWA will transfer SafetyAnalyst to AASHTO. For more information on SafetyAnalyst visit www.safetyanalyst.org/. The AASHTOWare catalog will be released soon at www.aashto.org.
- There was a question regarding the licensing fee.
- Dave Engstrom (MN) indicated it is approximately $45K – 50K per year. This includes 40 hours of technical help from engineering and IT. There may also be some classes/training/webinars.
- Dr. Krammes (FHWA) indicated that the software is eligible for HSIP funds.
- There was a question regarding the webinars.
- Dr. Krammes (FHWA) indicated the webinars would be an overview of what SafetyAnalyst is and some web-based training.
- There was a comment from the States that an overview of SafetyAnalyst would be the most helpful – just knowing what SafetyAnalyst is would help.
- There was a question regarding whether the software is just for the States to use or whether consultants could also use it.
- Dr. Krammes believes that the licensing includes State DOTs and whoever supports the States (i.e., consultants).
- There was a question regarding if local jurisdictions could use the software.
- This is complicated software – probably too complicated for locals.
- There was a question regarding how the webinars offered by FHWA are different than those performed by Darren Torbic at Midwest Research Institute.
- Dr. Krammes indicated that Torbic's weekly talks are about one particular aspect where the webinars will be broader overviews.
Results Evaluation 5-8
- Dr. Frank Gross (VHB) gave a presentation on the Lane and Shoulder Width evaluation. The most important finding of the evaluation is that the interaction between lane and shoulder width is important.
- There was a question regarding whether Dr. Gross included severity in the disaggregate analysis.
- Dr. Gross (VHB) indicated that he did not.
- There was a question regarding if there was any noticeable effect on bicycles.
- Dr. Gross (VHB) indicted that he did not look at bicycle crashes. Kim Eccles (VHB) commented that the study design does not lend itself to that. The sample size would get incredibly small.
- Shawn Troy (NC) thanked the project team for investigating narrower lanes widths. NC has high volume, 22 feet roadways.
- There was a conversation regarding adding on other States to fill the gap for narrower (less than 24 ft) roadways.
- There was a comment that wider shoulders prompt people to park.
- Dr. Bhagwant Persaud (Persaud and Lyon) gave a presentation on the Offset Left-turn Lane evaluation.
- There was a clarification on positive versus negative offsets.
- There was a question regarding if the sites evaluated were all at signalized intersections.
- Dr. Persaud (Persaud and Lyon) indicated that they were all signalized intersections.
- There was a question regarding whether the project team considered the left-turn protection.
- Dr. Frank Gross (VHB) indicated that they did not include any protected sites. The sites were either permissive or protected/permissive.
- There was a question regarding whether the project team looked at the difference between protected and protected/permissive.
- Dr. Persaud (Persaud and Lyon) indicated that it was not included in the disaggregate analysis, but that would be good to look into.
- There was a question regarding why rear-ends were included as a target crash.
- Dr. Persaud (Persaud and Lyon) indicated that they were looking at crashes that were a result of unintended consequences; if a driver goes to turn left but wasn't able to b/c someone was coming, they would get rear-ended.
- There was a question regarding whether any of the locations were flashing yellow.
- Dr. Persaud (Persaud and Lyon) indicated that they were not.
- Jeff Wolfe (KY) questioned what type of signal head they used (i.e., a green ball). He commented that a green ball often causes confusion especially with younger/inexperienced drivers.
- Dr. Persaud responded that he believes they just used a green ball.
- There was a question regarding the increase in crashes in Nebraska.
- Dr. Persaud (Persaud and Lyon) indicated that Nebraska installed the treatment at all of their intersections and they may have not done it right. They often put lateral separation between the thru lane and left-lane but did not improve the site distance. They narrowed the lanes, but did not improve site distance which may have led to an increase in crashes.
- Roya Amjadi commented that the NE installations are a great example of why you should know "when and how to use" a strategy before implementation.
- Bhagwant Persaud (Persaud and Lyon) commented that he spoke with researchers from Nebraska who had looked at this. Nebraska first put this in at a few high crash locations, they got really good results, and decided to put it in everywhere.
- There was a question regarding the crash costs used in the study - why is there a lower value associated with head-on crashes when compared to rear-end crashes?
- Dr. Persaud (Persaud and Lyon) indicates that these figures are based on FHWA crash costs from a red-light camera study. The costs are based on head-on crashes at signalized intersections, not head-on crashes on two-lane rural roads.
- Dave Engstrom (MN) commented that MN uses severity in its cost estimates; they do not use crash types. Several others States agreed.
- Kim Eccles (VHB) indicated that the project team used type (as opposed to severity) because the results are by type.
- A State questioned the group on their feel for true service lives. Even if one treatment has a service life of 20 years, because of volume changes, we often have to add other treatments or improve intersections, which change the service life.
- Jeff Wolfe (KY) commented that they don't do benefit/cost for low-cost safety improvements.
- Shawn Troy (NC) stated that starting in 2005 North Carolina does benefit/cost analysis for all of their projects.
- A State questioned whether the project has a definition of "low-cost".
- Kim Eccles (VHB) responded that that is up to the States to determine what they consider low-cost.
- Ning Li (VA) commented that even if you put in a left-turn lane based on a benefit/cost analysis with a service life of 20 years, and then five (5) years down the line take out that lane, the benefits of the lane are still realized. Virginia DOT has a table that looks at service life and crash reduction factors.
- Dr. Frank Gross (VHB) gave a presentation on the Advanced Street Name Signs evaluation.
- A question was asked if the project team looked at the differences based on number of signs per approach or size of the sign.
- Dr. Gross (VHB) responded that they did not. In addition, these were all MUTCD standard signs (or were at least indicated to be). The size of the signs is indicated in the report.
- John Carey (CT) questioned whether the sideswipe crashes used in the evaluation included opposite direction sideswipes.
- Dr. Gross responded that opposite direction sideswipes were not included. Sideswipe crashes included sideswipe same direction on a multi-lane arterial.
- Jeff Wolfe (KY) questioned whether or not every sign was a white on green guide sign.
- Dr. Gross (VHB) responded that the project team identified some sites that were the yellow warning, but only the green guide signs were evaluated in this study.
- A question was raised regarding the distance on the mainline to include in the crash data set.
- Dr. Gross (VHB) responded that 750 feet was used.
- Shawn Troy (NC) commented that he did a quick analysis of NC's signs [yellow intersection warning signs with supplementary street name sign] in Cary, and got similar results. One additional crash they looked at was u-turns for those that missed their intersection.
- A question was asked regarding how many crashes you have to reduce to justify this economically.
- If you reduce one sideswipe every 120 years you break even.
- Joe Santos – via phone (FL) commented that the initial thinking was good for a corridor-level strategy.
- Disaggregate analysis provides insight on where this may be more or less effective. If you have an urban corridor –then yes, this may be effective for an entire corridor.
- Jeff Wolfe (KY) commented that he thinks it would be more effective on corridors because of driver expectations, if they see one, they would expect to see additional signs coming up.
- Lisa Schletzbaum (MA) commented that their signs were on corridors. The feedback they originally got from people was that these signs were terrific because there is consistent advanced signing.
- Roya Amjadi (FHWA) commented that mobility and safety go hand in hand.
- Dave Engstrom (MN) commented that if he were to take this to his people they would say this doesn't do anything for safety. There are other things you can do that will do more. It's nice to be able to get around easier but it doesn't translate to safety.
- Barbara O'Rourke (NY) commented that they don't do this in NY – but when she travels to other places she appreciates them.
- Gary Ogletree (TN) commented that with GPS, these signs may become less needed.
- A comment was made that due to the low-cost of these signs, it is more cost-effective to spend the money on the signs than in the court room.
- Dr. Raghavan Srinivasan (UNC HSRC) gave a presentation on the horizontal curve improvements evaluation.
- Dave Engstrom (MN) asked how lane departure was defined.
- Dr. Srinivasan (UNC HSRC) responded that sideswipe, head-on, and run-off-road crashes were used.
- A question was asked if all of the curves used in the study were on two-lane roads.
- Dr. Srinivasan (UNC HSRC) responded that yes, they were all on two-lane roads.
- Joe Santos – via phone (FL) questioned if speed or pavement friction was taken into account.
- Dr. Srinivasan (UNC HSRC) responded that no, they did not have either.
- John Smith (MS) commented that Mississippi stopped using fluorescent yellow b/c it's not as durable. They found yellow performs better for maintenance.
- Gary Ogletree (TN) commented that Tennessee uses fluorescent yellow on all high-speed routes.
- John Carey (CT) found the same thing and they only use fluorescent yellow where needed (curves, etc).
- Jeff Wolfe (KY) asked if that is something 3M acknowledges.
- John Carey (CT) noted only through their warranty – it's shorter.
- A question was posed regarding why the project team measured crashes per mile and not per-curve.
- Dr. Srinivasan (UNC HSRC) responded that they did both; they are just showing per-mile in the presentation. Also, there was a range in the length of the curve.
- A question was posed whether the project team looked at the entire segment of just the curve portion.
- Dr. Srinivasan (UNC HSRC) responded that they just looked at the curve. In some of the CT sites there were spirals, which we included.
- A question was posed if there was a difference between urban and rural.
- Dr. Srinivasan (UNC HSRC) responded that they were all rural 2-lane roads.
- A question was posed regarding the before conditions.
- Dr. Srinivasan (UNC HSRC) responded that in Washington there were no signs. In Connecticut they improved existing signs (fluorescent), added additional signs, and added post delineators.
- Kim Eccles (VHB) posed a question to the States regarding how many of them have programmed their HRRR funds.
- Several States raised hands – but several didn't. Kim mentioned that States should think about doing this with their HRRR funds.
- Priscilla Tobias (IL) commented that Illinois looked at doing this on local roads that had problems and those projects are rolling out this spring. Also, one of the Districts in IL is implementing this system-wide. They are looking at doing this again State-wide using local dollars or HSIP dollars.
- Kim Eccles (VHB) commented that she was recently at a peer-exchange where this topic came up.
- Jeff Wolfe (KY) asked the group if anyone is using sign-grants.
- Priscilla Tobias (IL) commented that she thinks Iowa is doing that and Illinois is doing that too.
- There was a discussion on getting local agencies to implement safety improvements.
- Norm Cressman (GA) commented that Georgia funded a position in each of their districts for off-system district engineers to solicit local city and county agencies to help put together a safety package.
- Robert Hull (UT) commented that Utah provides expertise to the locals.
- Kim Eccles (VHB) commented that financial arrangements with local agencies will be a topic for the round table discussion.
- Kim Eccles (VHB) gave a presentation on several crash reduction factor (CRF) resources including the Crash Reduction Factors Desktop Reference Guide, Crash Reduction Factor Training Course, and the Crash Reduction Factor Clearinghouse.
- Kim Eccles (VHB) queried the group on how many States use the Crash Reduction Factors Guide. Only a few States raised their hands.
- Priscilla Tobias (IL) noted that she would like a hardcopy of the guide.
- Karen Yunk (FHWA) commented that there are plenty of hardcopies. Kim Eccles (VHB) noted that VHB has a number of copies and would be happy to send them to her.
- Dave Engstrom (MN) commented that many of the CRFs are open to interpretation and asked if any of the classes help with that process.
- Dr. Gross (VHB) responded that the first course provides the basics, but there is still some flexibility. The rating system should help provide additional information beyond just numbers.
- There was a discussion on combining crash reduction factors.
- Dr Gross (VHB) commented that there is no accepted method for combining crash reduction factors.
- Ning Li (VA) commented that Virginia uses a method for combining CRFs.
- There was a discussion regarding who the States may contact if the State's have any questions regarding the application of CRFs or knowing if their staff are applying them correctly.
- The state safety list serve might still be the best resource, the Clearinghouse may have Frequently Asked Questions, and Karen Yunk (FHWA) is another possible resource.
- Shawn Troy (NC) commented that North Carolina has a committee of decision makers to help resolve their internal issues.
- Priscilla Tobias (IL) commented that the Highway Safety Manual will be a helpful resource.
- Dave Engstrom (MN) posed a question, asking if anyone conducts evaluations after the fact.
- Thomas Schriber (CA) commented that California has a system that can show how much projects cost and how many crashes were reduced. They are inputting older data manually and will use those to develop CRFs.
- Barbara O'Rourke (NY) commented that they do evaluations using 3 years of before and 3 years of after data. They have it hooked into the financial system. They hope to have valid, automated CRFs within two years.
- Shawn Troy (NC) noted that North Carolina does this site by site.
- A question was posed to Shawn, asking if North Carolina is implementing only one countermeasure at a time or several.
- Shawn replied that it is often several.
- Joe Santos via phone (FL) commented that they have a web-based system to track the performance of projects and develop crash reduction factors.
- Dave Engstrom (MN) posed a question to Kim Eccles (VHB) if CRFs based on single site analysis would be included in the CRF Clearinghouse.
- Kim responded that they would only be looking for CRFs based on multi-site analysis.
- A question was posed regarding who would maintain the CRF Clearinghouse website.
- Kim Eccles (VHB) responded that it is still to be determined. VHB and HSRC are working on the initial set-up and potential technical review process. This will be similar to Ped/Bike Clearinghouse, SRTS, etc.
- Beth Alicandri (FHWA) noted that the Ped/Bike and SRTS sites are funded through federal legislation.
- The question was posted regarding whether or not the CRF Clearinghouse project team is looking for financial contributions from the States.
- Karen Yunk (FHWA) commented that this may be a possibility if they can't find funding.
- Dr. Carol Tan (FHWA) gave a presentation on the Model Minimum Inventory of Roadway Elements (MMIRE)
- The question was posed regarding whether or not any State is collecting all 180 elements.
- Dr. Tan (FHWA) replied that, no, they are not; the highest is about 70 percent.
- The question was posed whether there is any coordination with HPMS.
- Dr. Tan (FHWA) replied that they are coordinating with the HPMS office, and using HPMS definitions and coding whenever possible.
- Roya Amjadi (FHWA) gave a presentation on the future direction of the next phase of the study, Phase V.
- There were four possible alternatives proposed: retrospective studies, built-to-evaluate, driving simulations, and developing national safety performance measures.
- There was a discussion of developing national safety performance measures.
- Jeff Wolfe (KY) commented that his State focuses on where the majority of the crashes are occurring. He voiced his concern using national safety performance measures to determine sites that need improvement. With this type of analysis, if their highest crash location is under the national average, would they then say they don't have a problem?
- Roya Amjadi (FHWA) responded that it is really based on judgment. If you know ROR crashes is your problem – it is your decision. It is still better to have the data/information.
- Shawn Troy (NC) commented that North Carolina already has a highway safety program; they already analyze their data and will continue their current process so this type of program will not be helpful.
- Roya Amjadi (FHWA) noted there is a need for a baseline for statistical analysis using high level sophisticated statistics.
- Priscilla Tobias (IL) commented that their statistical analysis is done by universities, but it is more by location, not by collision type.
- Roya Amjadi (FHWA) commented that they may want to be aware of what is happening in the Nation, a "big picture". FHWA is proposing to give you methodologies and tools to help.
- Ron Lipps (MD) questioned if a comparison will be useful if the same thing is happening everywhere.
- Robert Hull posed a question regarding if a State is at the national average, does that mean they are "good".
- Roya Amjadi (FHWA) responded that this would be a tool to help States map out their safety efforts.
- Robert Hull (UT) noted that it could be a potential problem if a State drops below the baseline—then they might not want to do anything.
- Shawn Troy (NC) indicated that the development of national safety performance measures should be a completely different project from the Low-cost project. The purpose of this project is to evaluate low-cost safety measures.
- Priscilla Tobias (IL) noted that there is an AASHTO Task Force to update the NCHRP and questioned whether this would be a duplicating effort.
- Shawn Troy (NC) commented that even the evaluations that show no results are helpful.
- Dave Engstrom (MN) noted that these data would be in the category of "nice to know". A lot of this analysis we have done in the SHSP. From the Low-cost study, he needs results of safety treatments.
- Roya Amjadi (FHWA) commented that this is why there is a ballot – there are options, and the States get to decide what they would like to do.
- Priscilla Tobias (IL) noted that they will soon be using the highway safety manual HSM and need to identify what CRFs are still needed.
- Roya Amjadi (FHWA) noted that in the case of Nebraska, they didn't apply the treatment correctly – so just having a CRF is not always the best.
- Shawn Troy (NC) posed a question regarding whether the States could pick the strategies if they did a retrospective evaluation for Phase V.
- Roya Amjadi (FHWA) responded that the States can pick whatever they want.
- Steve Buckley (KS) noted that if the States chose to do a retrospective study, they need to do a better job of providing the project team with data.
State Roundtable Discussions
- Kim Eccles (VHB) posed several questions to the group for a roundtable discussion on the States' safety efforts.
- What are your current safety focus areas, particularly related to low-cost efforts?
- Do you have any projects focused on low-cost system-wide safety improvements? Rural road safety improvements?
- What is working and what isn't related to low-cost safety improvements?
- Do you have any innovative low-cost treatments that appear to be working well?
- Do you currently or do you plan to track safety improvements through a central database?
- Joe Santos – via phone (FL) discussed the recent safety efforts in Florida.
- Focus on lane departure – incorporating rumble stripes.
- Intersection related – pedestrian countdown signals.
- System-wide implementations include back-plates for all signal heads, and signal heads for all through lanes.
- Innovative treatments include audible warnings on the edge line on two-lane rural roads. This was new as of this year.
- There are some concerns with the safety edge and pavement folks - not b/c it's not working – just need to identify where to put it.
- There was a discussion on in-pavement lightening for pedestrian crossings?
- A few States mentioned they put them in and took them out.
- There has been some user confusion.
- Thomas Schriber (CA) noted that they had successful and unsuccessful installations.
- Shawn Troy (NC) discussed the recent safety efforts in North Carolina.
- Flashing yellow arrow at 43 sites. The initial feeling is they won't see a large crash reduction, but it is doing a little bit.
- Four-way stop countermeasure; they are converting 2-way to 4-way stops at 40 treatment sites & have 200 reference sites. There are several (19) two-way stop locations where they installed a flasher and it didn't work, so they installed a 4-way stop. In NC local engineers don't want to deal with 4-way stops because they don't want to deal with the phone calls from locals so Shawn wants to prove they improve safety to justify them to the locals.
- Shawn Troy (NC) noted that North Carolina is looking at all of the projects they did in 2002 and doing a B/C – this data helped to justify the Spot Safety Program.
- The safety edge.
- North Carolina does have a database, but he still finds it difficult to track chevrons.
- Jeff Wolfe (KY) discussed the recent safety efforts in Kentucky.
- Kentucky is focusing on lane departure.
- There are not many projects focused on low-cost system-wide improvements. They often turn the district offices loose; here are the funds, here are your problem areas, what do you want to do? Jeff is not sure it is working well.
- They have been doing:
- Centerline rumble strips on two-lane roadways
- Pilot for providing shoulder rumble and modifying lane width
- Pilot w/ MPO trying to use their abilities to identify local roads
- Kentucky hasn't had much time to evaluate anything they have done.
- They have been installing several low-cost treatments at signalized intersections – back plates, etc. The only thing that seemed to work was installing a signal head per lane for 3-lane intersections.
- They track anything that is HSIP-related.
- John Carey (CT) discussed the recent safety efforts in Connecticut.
- Connecticut is focusing on run-off-road (ROR) crashes; 64 percent of ROR fatalities are hitting guardrails. Connecticut has found out their guardrails aren't up to standards.
- Focusing on crashes on local roads because there are diminishing gains on the state highway system. Connecticut would like to have system-wide improvements for local roads.
- Since they are a snow State they lose markings, they are currently doing a project to improve markings.
- They have developed a treatment to put actuated flashers on advance crosswalk signs. They are actuated when the pedestrian pushes a button at the pedestrian crosswalk with a time clock that shuts them off. They only have 6, but are getting good feedback.
- Jeff Wolfe (KY) is doing this also.
- Connecticut has a database to track HSIP projects.
- Priscilla Tobias (IL) discussed the recent safety efforts in Illinois.
- They are focusing on roadway departure and intersection improvements. Alcohol is often a contributing factor.
- System-wide they are implementing: delineation improvements for curves, shoulders, advance warning, and chevrons for a 4-5 county project. They are also doing sign improvements, where they drive through a district and put signs in where they think they are needed. They are also doing retrofit rumble strips, back plates w/ reflective material for signal heads, installing one signal head per lane, and a guardrail replacement (on border of not being compliant with NCHRP 350) project.
- There was a discussion among the States on strips, stripes, rolled, and milled rumbles– how they did what and where.
- Their innovative treatments are yield bars at high-speed intersections. This was first at a few locations and now will be district-wide. They are also doing a speed reduction measure at high-speed intersections; narrowing from 12-feet to 10-feet.
- There was a discussion on Illinois's efforts to improve local road safety. They give out 20 percent of their HSIP dollars to locals. They also developed local safety crash identification support.
- Barbara O'Rourke (NY) discussed the recent safety efforts in New York:
- Pedestrians are a major priority.
- There was a question posed regarding the types of pedestrian improvements being implemented.
- Barbara responded that they were doing signing, striping, and enforcement this year. If the intersections need major improvements, it will probably have to wait until next year.
- New York is conducting a pilot program on Long Island called Safe Seniors.
- Other safety treatments include the safety edge /safety wedge, and designing for lower speed limits on rural highways.
- They are having trouble spending their High Risk Rural Road funding.
- New York tracks safety improvements in their accident database.
- Kim Eccles (VHB) summarized what they States had reported so far:
- System-wide improvements are huge.
- States are focusing on: ROR, lane departure, pedestrians, and intersections.
- Kim Eccles (VHB) queried the group on some of the high priority treatments they want to see evaluated?
- Kim Eccles (VHB) commented that something she would like to see evaluated is pavement arrows/pavement curve ahead warnings in advance of a curve.
- John Smith (MS) commented the signs might have some unintended consequences of rear-ends if the arrow looks like a turn sign.
- Jeff Wolfe (KY) commented he would like to see it look more like a curve advisory and less like a turn.
- John Smith (MS) commented he would like to see four-lane divided median openings evaluated.
- Priscilla Tobias (IL) commented that they use a yield bar instead of a stripe across median openings.
- Gary Ogletree (OK) noted that they put yields in median openings.
- Jeff Wolfe (KY) posed a question to the group regarding if anyone puts in flashers.
- Steve Buckley (KS) commented that they have one in Lawrence.
- Jeff Wolfe (KY) posed the question if there are any legal issues with it failing?
- Steve Buckley (KS) responded that there are no legal issues.
- Dave Engstrom (MN) and Ron Lipps (MD) both commented that they would like to see non-signalized J-turns evaluated.
The meeting was adjourned for the day.
Day 2: Thursday, March 19, 2009
The State Roundtable Discussion Continued
- Dave Engstrom (MN) discussed the recent safety efforts in Minnesota.
- They are focusing on intersections, the lane departures on the local system.
- Their low-cost safety improvements include:
- Intersections: Lighting, which they have found is helpful in daytime and nighttime. The street light poll helps indicate that an intersection is coming-up (even in the daytime).
- Signing: They developed a set of pavement markings and advanced signing.
- Roadway departure: Rumble strips, rumble stripes, 6 inch edgelines, and chevrons at curves.
- Cable median barrier: Although the total crashes aren't necessarily going down, they are exchanging injury/fatal crashes for property damage only crashes.
- A question was posed regarding if they have had any complaints from highway patrol, having to be on left-side.
- Dave Engstrom (MN) responded that one of their districts put in changeable message signs to warn people of an incident ahead.
- A question was posed regarding if they are having crossover problems.
- Dave Engstrom (MN) responded that there were thirteen fatals.
- Jeff Wolfe (KY) commented that there is a big push in their State to put it in, but he is not sure it's the best "bang for their buck".
- Shawn Troy (NC) noted that one problem they have had with it is when you put median barrier in, crashes go up because now there is a fixed object. One benefit they have found is they are able to start isolating wet-crash problem areas. They install barriers on 70 feet or less.
- Dave Engstrom (MN) commented that they have been very happy with them.
- Gary Ogletree (OK) indicated that they have had some problems with people hitting them and driving away, so they don't know who did it.
- Ron Lipps (MD) posed a question to the group asking if anyone has found a difference with different manufacturers.
- Gary Ogletree (OK) responded that the primary cost is replacing the posts. There is not much difference between the systems – the primary maintenance cost is replacing the post.
- Shawn Troy (NC) posed a question to the group asking if anyone has started a program approach to non-freeway segments.
- Dave Engstrom (MN) responded that they did a solicitation of their districts and asked them to look at expressways too.
- Brian Stanford (TX) commented that Texas has some on non-freeway sections.
- Ning Li (VA) posed a question to the group asking if anyone has any reliable conclusions on the safety effects of removing right-turn channelization at signalized locations.
- Jeff Wolfe (KY) commented that they have had a few districts resist putting them in at non-signalized intersections.
- Ning Li (VA) commented that they can see a safety benefit but a sacrifice in efficiency.
- John Carey (CT) noted that they are really dangerous for pedestrians. He doesn't think there is a safety benefit to them – only a capacity benefit.
- Ning Li (VA) wondered if they can put out better signing instead of having to take them out.
- There was a discussion regarding detectors and yellow times and where to put the detectors at signalized intersections.
- Roya Amjadi (FHWA) gave a presentation on Phase III, Build to Evaluate.
- Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Florida, and Virginia have all agreed to be lead States for this phase.
- Tom Welch – via phone (IA) commented that it is very helpful to have someone else take a look at the data.
- Shawn Troy (NC) commented that it is frustrating from his perspective to have people investigating and making recommendations for safety implementations when he has a 5-year backlog of projects they have identified. How can they justify leapfrogging their own projects for Phase III projects? North Carolina cannot participate in this Phase because of this issue.
- Tom Welch – via phone (IA) commented that States can choose to operate the way they are now, or choose to change, that is up to the States. Phase III is giving States the opportunity to give them the best information, make an informed decision, and the States can choose what they would like to do.
- Dave Engstrom (MN) posed a question asking if there is a list of what States are putting in.
- Kim Eccles (VHB) responded that that has not yet been determined. VHB is facilitating between the five States so possibly two States choose the same strategy. Having multi-state evaluations are optimal. VHB will be providing whatever support the States need, but also act as a conduit to communicate between the States. VHB can possibly hold a follow-up webconference to update the TAC and keep them informed of the process.
- Norm Cressman (GA) commented that Georgia is a big user of the software CARE. If anyone is looking for a low-cost solution for data analysis – CARE is a good option. They also have a good GIS component. Norm will send out info on the software to the group.
- Tom Welch – via phone (IA) gave an update on Iowa's safety efforts and Phase III activities
- They are focusing on run-off-road countermeasures; they have installed narrow rumble stripes.
- Installation of larger chevrons with 6 years before data and 7 years after resulted in 20% reductions – very cost effective.
- For Phase III Iowa is considering:
- Implementing various curve improvements including bigger and brighter chevrons, centerline rumble strips, and shoulder rumble stripes.
- Focusing on rural 2-lane roads.
- Doing 12" rumbles for increased bicycle comfort on 4' shoulders.
- Joe Santos – via phone (FL) gave an update on Florida's Phase III activities.
- Audible and vibratory pavement markers.
- Asked if there were any other States interested in installing?
- Snow plow is a concern for snow states.
- Signal heads for through lanes with retroreflective back plate sheeting.
- Countdown pedestrian signals.
- Several other States are focusing on roadway departure strategies. Joe is Ok with trying to focus on roadway departure also.
- Jeff Wolfe (KY) gave an update on Kentucky's Phase III activities.
- Identified lane departure on curves as a problem.
- Potential treatments include:
- Improving all signs – oversizing, dual mounting, staggering signs.
- Milled centerline rumble stripes.
- Lane narrowing as approach curve with markings.
- Wider edgelines on curves (6 inch line with 12 inch rumble and stripe part of rumble).
- Pavement markers on white edgelines.
- Improved marking – all weather paint.
- Fluorescent yellow.
- Large arrow chevrons.
- Verifying advisory speeds.
- Advance curve warning with combo arrow and advisory.
- Yellow sheeting on signs posts.
- Flashing beacons or LED enhancement.
- Marking in lane – arrow or slow.
- Guardrail delineators.
- Shoulder widening.
- Roya Amjadi (FHWA) commented that going through all 4,000 crashes to identify locations is a tremendous crash. Roya suggested going to the Districts for locations or keep in mind that States can have VHB do the work. Roya posed a question regarding if Kentucky is planning on doing skid problems and if they are planning on doing resistance testing.
- Jeff Wolfe (KY) posed a question if they should be consistent across sites; for example, should they put down friction at all sites for consistency?
- Kim Eccles (VHB): They shouldn't put things down that aren't needed. But hopefully if you have 20 sites – 10 will need it and 10 won't.
- Steve Buckley (KS) gave a presentation on Kansas's Phase III activities
- A question was posed asking if anyone is installing longitudinal mid-lane rumble strips and if they are having any problems with motorcycles.
- Jeff Wolfe (KY) commented that they talked about it years ago and was pretty much a unanimous no.
- Steve Buckley (KS) gave an overview of the treatments they are thinking about pursuing:
- Skid-resistant surfacing, they are working with FHWA on this friction demonstration project.
- Wet weather pavement markings.
- Encapsulated bead technology.
- Pavement marking symbols – advance of curve.
- Signs – fluorescent yellow chevrons.
- Alternating standard and fluorescent yellow signs.
- Brian Stanford (TX) commented that alternating signs only makes the non-fluorescent look old or warn out, there were no positive safety benefits to it.
- Steve Buckley (KS) noted that Missouri has gone all fluorescent yellow.
- Tom Welch – via phone (IA) commented that Iowa has done that also, as signs wear out they put in fluorescents.
- Ning Li (VA) gave a presentation on Virginia's Phase III activities
- Virginia's current curve treatments include rumble strips and centerline rumble strips but VA has poor shoulders.
- New possible treatments include:
- Advance warning with transverse rumble strips and curve pavement markings.
- Delineation with chevrons and new technology such as LED lights or flashers (e.g. TXDOT active system).
- Surface treatments for friction and visibility/conspicuity.
- Shoulder widening and superelevation improvements.
- Bob Pollack (FHWA) gave a presentation on the FHWA Crash Data Improvement Program
- Priscilla Tobias (IL) commented on data collection side in Illinois. The State is working to improve the process of getting the data into the system more quickly – but yet – the user can't get access to it any sooner. There should be a push to get it to the user more quickly.
- Barbara O'Rourke (NY) commented that their department of motor vehicles owns the numbers. In NY, the government has to approve it.
- Paul Tremont (FHWA) gave a presentation on Phase IV: Driving Simulation - Small Towns and Rural Curves
- The question was asked how the detection of how far away the curve was measured.
- Paul responded that the drivers were instructed to tell the staff conducting the simulation.
- Wrap-Up
- The participants were instructed to fill out their Phase V ballots and try to get them to Kim Eccles (VHB) within a week.
- E-mail Michelle Scism (VHB) with any questions about expenses.
- Priscilla Tobias (IL) announced that Illinois is hosting a National Safety Performance Function (SPF) Summit. If anyone is interested they should contact Priscilla.
- Roya Amjadi (FHWA) made closing comments. She thanked the participants for attending the meeting, especially those who were first time participants, and those who participated over the phone. Also, for future phases, she is hopeful that there are several more phases. The participants should feel free to e-mail Roya Amjadi or Dr. Carol Tan (FHWA) with any questions.
Meeting Adjourned
OVERTIME
Overtime Adjourned |
