Wisconsin 2007 Five Percent Report
This report is in response to the Federal requirement that each state describe at least 5 percent of its locations currently exhibiting the most severe highway safety needs, in accordance with Sections 148(c)(1)(D) and 148(g)(3)(A), of Title 23, United States Code. Each state's report is to include potential remedies to the hazardous locations identified; estimated costs of the remedies; and impediments to implementation of the remedies other than costs. The reports included on this web site represent a variety of methods utilized and various degrees of road coverage. Therefore, this report cannot be compared with the other reports included on this Web site.
Protection from Discovery and Admission into Evidence—Under 23 U.S.C. 148(g)(4) information collected or compiled for any purpose directly relating to this report shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in the reports. |
Additional information, including the specific legislative requirements, can be found in the guidance provided by the Federal Highway Administration,
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/fiveguidance.htm.
2007 Highway Safety Improvement Program Reports
Wisconsin Department of Transportation
August 2007
5% Report
Background
In accordance with the SAFETEA-LU Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) requirements [Section 148 (c) (1) (D)] for reducing traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public roads, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) has identified the top 5 percent of crash locations exhibiting the most “severe” safety needs occurring on State Trunk Highway routes (i.e. Traditional report). Beginning with this report, WisDOT is also including the results of a “Cross-Median Crash” analysis (i.e. Additional report) as part of the “5%” Report. Countermeasures for improving safety and estimates of the associated costs are also provided.
Geographic Extent of the Analysis
- State Trunk routes only
- Local routes have not been included due to a current inability to “place” crashes at appropriate locations along the network
- An experimental project which implements a new strategy to address this process is nearing completion
- Wisconsin plans to incorporate Local routes into the 5% analysis by August, 2008
- The initial incorporation of this information could include fewer than 5 years of crash data
Methodology
The 5% list of locations (Traditional report) was produced with data from the Safety module of WisDOT’s Meta-Manager Asset Management System [1] as well as guidance from WisDOT’s Highway Safety Engineers. In general, the steps are as follows:
Step 1
- Remove deer crashes and then tabulate crash totals and types of crashes for each segment of the State Trunk Highway (the system is comprised of roughly 20,000 segments with an average length of 1 mile)
Step 2
- Place each segment of the State Trunk Highway System into one of ten functional “peer” groups [2] (e.g. Rural Freeway, Urban Divided, etc.)
- Calculate “Group statistics” such as average Crash Rate, Proportion of Death/Serious injury crashes, etc.
Step 3
- “Flag” miles (locations) which have rates and/or proportions which significantly [3] exceed the Group average
Step 4
- Select locations which are “flagged” for Proportion of Death/Serious Injury crashes and Crash Rate and experience a minimum of 3 crashes per year over the 5 year analysis period
Step 5
- Sort the resulting list of locations by the Death/Serious injury proportion (high to low)
Step 6
- Select the first 15 locations within each “peer” group (where applicable) or any locations which experiences at least 1.2 Death/Serious injury crashes per year over the 5 year analysis period
- Historically, a list of roughly 100 locations (both intersection and non-intersection) has been generated
Step 7
- Safety Engineers choose 10% of the resultant locations from their respective Regions
- These locations constitute the “Traditional” 5% Report and are analyzed for appropriate countermeasures
- Safety Engineers choose 10% of the resultant locations from their respective Regions
To view the locations, proposed countermeasures and cost estimates please refer to 5% Report-Meta Analysis.
Implementation
Locations on this list may become or are already projects within the Improvement Program (either HSIP-funded or conventionally funded). Since driver behavior is a significant contributing factor in Death/Serious Injury crashes, multi-disciplinary solutions are appropriate. It is understood that future HSIP programs will not be limited to this list.
Cross-Median Crashes (CMC)
In addition to the traditional 5% list, WisDOT is including a list of CMC projects as they are a key emphasis area for WisDOT HSIP funding. Specific HSIP funds are dedicated to addressing them (please see 5% Report-Median Crash Analysis.)
A freeway and expressway CMC is defined as a crash in which an out of control vehicle crosses the median and collides with a vehicle traveling in the opposite direction. WisDOT contracted with the University of Wisconsin Traffic Operations and Safety Lab to conduct an analysis using CALTRAN’s definition & warrants for CMCs (5-year database (2001 – 2005)). The end product of this analysis was the accompanying list of segments meeting median barrier CMC crash rate thresholds. The recommended CMC crash rate (retro-fit) thresholds were:
| Total CMC threshold: | 0.50 crashes/mile/year (minimum of 3 crashes in 5 years) |
| Fatal CMC threshold: | 0.12 fatal crashes/mile/year (minimum of 3 crashes in 5 years) |
Initial point of contact for the 5% Report:
Brad Javenkoski
608-264-8725
bradley.javenkoski@dot.state.wi.us
References
Please see the “Meta-Manager Management System-executive summary” attachment for a description of the Meta-Manager Asset Management System
“Like-Highway” Peer Groups
1 = Rural and Small Urban Freeways.
2 = Rural and Small Urban Expressways.
3 = Rural STN ADT greater than 3500 ADT.
4 = Rural STN ADT between 2000 and 3500 ADT.
5 = Rural STN ADT between 750 and 2000 ADT
6 = Rural STN ADT less than 750.
7 = Large Urban Freeways.
8 = Large Urban Divided Highways and One Way.
9 = Large Urban Undivided Highways.
10 = Small Urban STN.
“Significance” is defined as values which are 1 Standard Deviation from the Mean or greater.
2007 WisDOT 5% Report Project Developed Using Median Crash Analysis
| Highway | County | Project | Barrier Type | Barrier Cost Estimate (millions) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IH 39 | Dane/Columbia | IH 94 - USH 51 | Concrete (42") | 2.479 million |
| IH 39 | Dane/Columbia | STH 19 - CTH V | Concrete (42") | 5.526 million |
| IH 39 | Dane/Columbia | CTH V - Dane/Columbia Line | Concrete (32") | 2.524 million |
| USH 151 | Dane | Main Street - CTH VV | High Tension Cable | 1.136 million |
| USH 151 | Dodge | Beaver Dam Bypass (SB lanes) | High Tension Cable | 0.872 million |
| USH 41 | Fond du Lac | North of USH 151 - North of CTH OO | High Tension Cable | 0.246 million |
| USH 41 | Winnebago | STH 26 - Breezewood Lane | Concrete | Dependent on "MAJOR" project |
| USH 41 | Brown | CTH F - Suamico | Concrete | Dependent on "MAJOR" project |
| USH 41 | Brown | CTH F - Suamico | Concrete | Dependent on "MAJOR" project |
| USH 53 | LaCrosse | STH 157 - CTH MH | High Tension Cable | 1.75 million |
| USH 41 | Brown/Oconto | Norfield Road - Brown/Oconto County Line | Cable | 0.351 million |
| USH 12 | Dane | Whitney Way - Verona Road | Concrete | 0.5 million |
| IH 94 | Jefferson | Watertown Street - Switzke Road | Cable | 0.25 million |
| IH 90 | Juneau | STH 82 - CTH N | Cable | 0.35 million |
| IH 39 | Rock | Town Line Road - Woodman Road | Cable | 0.625 million |
| IH 39 | Rock/Dane | Near Newville Road - Near STH 73 | Cable | 0.625 million |
2007 WisDOT 5 Percent Report Projects Identified Using Meta-Manager Analysis
| ROUTE | Near or At | COUNTY | HIGHWAY PEER GROUP | POTENTIAL REMEDIES | ESTIMATED COST | POTENTIAL IMPEDIMENTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 441N | OFF RAMP TO USH 41 NB | OUTAGAMIE | Urban Freeway | One Plus One Lane Shift Concept, Auxillary Lanes on US 41 between CTH E and STH 441, Concrete Barrier on outside of STH 441 NB to USH 41 SB Curve, Lighting the STH 441 NB to USH 41 SB Ramp | $1,000,000 | May need a narrow strip of right-of-way on USH 41 between CTH E and STH 441 |
| 067N | 0.36 mile from LIME KILN RD | SHEBOYGAN | Rural w/ADT between 2000 and 3500 | Flatten horizontal curves near Holzman Road | $1,000,000 | Improvement will impact some wetlands and require the acquisition of some right-of-way. |
| 053N | CTH V | BARRON | Rural Expressway | Construct partial cloverleaf interchange at USH 53 / CTH V. Remove remaining access to USH 53 within interchange influence area by constructing / altering local roads. | $1,767,000 | Funding |
| 031N | 45TH ST | KENOSHA | Urban Divided | Install actuated traffic control signals at the intersection. Offset turn lanes on STH 31 to create better visibility for left turning vehicles. | $510,000 | |
| 038N | DREXEL AVE | MILWAUKEE | Urban Divided | Implement completed Road Safety Audit recommendations. Recommendations include upgrading signing and pavement marking, improving pedestrians accommodations, changing signal phasing and timing, improving left turn lanes, and closing median openings. | $1,070,000 | |
| 043N | 13TH ST under | MILWAUKEE | Urban Freeway | Install dynamic speed warning system both northbound and southbound in advance of the curve. The southbound system should be installed in the Fall 2007. | $760,000 | Installation of the Northbound system may be dependent on the schedule of the Plainfield Curve reconstruction. |
| 050E | CTH P | KENOSHA | Rural Expressway | Install positively offset slotted left turn lanes on STH 50. Improve signal head visibility and install advanced signal warning flashers. | $570,000 | |
| 051N | HOEPKER RD | DANE | Urban Divided | Construct a Roundabout | $1,429,785 | No Impediment - Tied to USH 51 & CTH CV Roundabout |
| 016E | CTH CW under | JEFFERSON | Small Urban | Construct a 1/2 Diamond Interchange | $2,400,000 | Local Business Access |
| 014W | FOUNDRY DR | RICHLAND | Small Urban | Reconstruct/consolidate Intersections, Create Frontage roads, | $2,000,000 | Local Business Access/Community doesn't agree with the current proposed solution, other solutions may need to be found |
WisDOT Meta-Manager Management System
Executive Summary
The Wisconsin Department of Transportation has embraced a “data-driven” Asset Management approach to the development of projects and programs that improve the State Trunk Highway Network. In conjunction with this reliance on data for decision-making, WisDOT has committed to a process of continual data quality improvement (e.g. standards for collection and storage, leverage of technology, integration strategies, etc).
Coupled with the effort to produce “better” data, WisDOT has developed Meta-Manager, a management system that consists of a comprehensive set of data and analysis tools for developing and managing the Six Year Highway Improvement Program. The primary Meta-Manager components are:
- A geographically integrated set of corporate databases (using specialized tools) representing:
- Pavement and bridge condition
- Six Year Program information
- Highway geometric and attribute information
- Highway crashes, highway capacity, etc.
- Pavement and bridge deterioration and improvement “reset” models
- Analysis models for evaluating: Physical conditions, Safety, Mobility, alternative strategies, costing, priorities and budget constraints
The Meta-Manager is used to:
- Identify, scope and prioritize projects
- Evaluate program performance (e.g. Before/After analyses)
- Estimate future conditions and needs
- Establish Program goals
- Allocate resources to Programs and to the Highway Transportation Districts
To date, utilization of the Meta-Manager has provided significant insight into the condition, needs, and priorities related to the Wisconsin State Trunk Highway System. This effort has enhanced statewide Program development consistency by facilitating an improved understanding of how Program goals and performance measurements are established.
