Low Cost Safety Improvements Pooled Fund Study

1
Low Cost Safety Improvements Pooled Fund Study

• Combination Centerline and Edgeline Rumble Strips

Dr. Frank Gross, VHB
2
Overview

• Background
• Missouris Program
• Status of Data Collection
• Remaining Data Needs
• Evaluation Considerations

3
Background

• Singe-vehicle ROR Crashes
• 39 percent of all fatal crashes (FARS, 1999)
• Included in Several NCHRP 500 Series Guidebooks
• Run Off Road, Head-on, Heavy Trucks, and
  Horizontal Curves
• Run-Off Road Guidebook
• 3 Experimental Strategies
• Edge line profile marking
• Edge line rumble strips
• Modified shoulder rumble strips
• (narrow or no paved shoulder)
• Ranked 1st in Phase I
• Low cost and short implementation timeframe (lt 1
  year)

4
Background

• Head-on Guidebook
• Install centerline rumble strips
• Tried strategy
• Ranked 3rd in Phase II
• Low cost
• Short implementation timeframe (lt 1 year)
• Heavy Trucks and Horizontal Curve Guides
• Shoulder and centerline rumble strips
• Low to moderate costs
• Short to medium implementation timeframe (1-2
  years)
• Heavy-vehicle drivers and horizontal curves

5
Background

• Dual Application
• Combination of centerline and edge line rumble
  strips
• Not included in NCHRP 500 Series
• Identified by Technical Advisory Committee
• NCHRP 17-32 Survey Results
• Approximately 200 miles
• 9 States
• AZ, ID, KY, MO, OR, TX, UT, WA, WY

6
Missouri DOT Program

• Missouri DOT Better Roads Brighter Future
• Improve 85 percent of major route system in 5
  years
• Part of Program Install Dual Rumble Strips
• Two predominant roadway types
• 4-lane divided expressways
• 2-lane roadways.
• Includes both rumble strips and stripes
• Mostly stripes
• Stripes are placed on the edge line
• Posted speed limits 55-65 mph

7
Missouri DOT Program

• Proposed Strategy Sites for FY 2007-2011
• 1170 miles (170 sites for 2007)
• 543 miles (75 sites for 2008)
• 2351 miles (329 sites for 2009-2011)
• Additional Improvements
• Surface improvements (overlay)
• Shoulder improvements (upgrade to 4 where
  possible)
• Others (sign upgrades where necessary)

8
Status of Data Collection

• Missouri
• Planned installations
• Those for SFY 2007 have begun
• MO DOT provided roadway/traffic data
• 2002 2005
• MO DOT provided crash database
• 1997 2005

9
Remaining Data Needs

• MO Reference Sites
• Sites planned for treatment in later years
• Additional States
• Proactive evaluation
• States planning to install combination rumble
  strips

10
Evaluation of Dual Application

• Crash Based Evaluation in MO
• Proactive before/after evaluation
• Evaluate sample of installations
• Disaggregate analysis
• Roadway type
• Night and weather conditions

11
Evaluation Considerations

• Disaggregate analysis
• Functional class
• Night and weather conditions
• Including other states in evaluation
• 4 States are Technical Advisory Committee Members