U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000


Skip to content
Facebook iconYouTube iconTwitter iconFlickr iconLinkedInInstagram

Safety

FHWA Home / Safety / Roadway Departure / Good Practices: Incorporating Safety into Resurfacing and Restoration Projects

Good Practices: Incorporating Safety into Resurfacing and Restoration Projects

Download Version
PDF [1.88 MB]

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

December 2006

< Previous Table of Contents Next >

CHAPTER 5: OBSERVED GOOD INSTITUTIONAL AND TECHNICAL PRACTICES AND STRATEGIES

During the scan, numerous good practices were observed, some used by one agency and some used by several or all agencies visited. They are classified as either institutional or technical good practices and are discussed below.

INSTITUTIONAL PRACTICES

Institutional Practice 1 - Integrate Safety into Preservation Projects

The scan confirmed the premise that integrating safety improvements into resurfacing and restoration projects is generally an effective and efficient method of simultaneously pursuing two transportation goals. In many cases, resurfacing projects are the only regular (or quasi-regular) road improvement activity. A number of "base" actions are needed to develop and implement a resurfacing project. Base actions include an inventory of existing conditions and features, development of specifications, contract bidding and award, contractor mobilization, and construction administration. The cost of these items is substantial and does not change significantly with modest scope expansion. The intersection area in figure 3 represents shared base costs that result in economy of effort and cost.

Figure 3. Two intersecting rings-one System Preservation, the other Safety Improvements-illustrate the relationship of incorporating safety improvements into roadway preservation projects.
Figure 3. Incorporating safety improvements in system preservation.

However, there are situations where separate projects for pavement and safety improvement are advantageous, such as area- or corridor-level focused safety projects (e.g., rumble strip, barrier placement). When safety improvements are the sole or primary scope of the project, unit costs are often lower than where the same treatment is included in a resurfacing project.

Institutional Practice 2 - Establish Multifund Project Tracking

Transportation funds are suballocated into numerous categories corresponding to a primary purpose, system, or mode. Flexibility varies. In some cases, categorical allocations are legislatively prescribed and explicitly define eligible expenditures and amounts. In others cases, agency leaders and managers have substantial discretion on proportional allocation and eligibility. The addition of safety improvements to resurfacing projects may be viewed by some as misappropriation. All operational units of transportation agencies have target expenditure levels for major program areas. As indicated by table 2, when a single activity is intended to accomplish multiple purposes (e.g., pavement preservation and improved safety), the cost associated with each improvement should be attributed to the appropriate program.

The absence of this capability will inhibit cost-effective multipurpose projects and encourage delivery of only single-purpose projects. The ability to distribute the cost of a single project to multiple cost centers is an important asset.
Table 2. Example tabulation of split-funded projects.

Project Pavement preservation share Safety improvement share Other fund share Total Cost
SR 56, Sect 5B 358,215 57,551 36,875 452,641
SR 114, Sect 6G 876,284 45,842   922,126
SR 765, Sect 15E 982,057 78,452 258,138 1,318,647
SR 595, Sect 23D 591,882 53,985 35,807 681,674
SR 88, Sect 13F 1,298,125 99,212   1,397,337
SR 302, Sect 9B 487,381 85,368 128,375 701,124
SR 472, Sect 3C 584,682 78,318   663,000
TOTAL $5,178,626 $498,728 $459,195 $6,136,549

Institutional Practice 3 - Allow for Flexible Project Development Cycles

Resurfacing projects are awarded each and every year. Ideally, the need to meet targeted awards should not result in projects that exclude cost-effective improvements. However, if the time allowed for project development is very short (e.g., 4 to 8 months) and all projects in the development phase are needed to attain contract award goals, then safety improvements may be omitted when they require longer preconstruction phases. Some resurfacing projects can be properly developed in a short period of time; however, additional time may be needed to include cost-effective safety improvements. During the scan, several techniques were observed that provide for additional development time when needed and still allow the agency to attain its resurfacing and contract award goals. Annual lettings are comprised of projects with a variety of development periods as conceptually illustrated in figure 4, where project development ranges from 1 to 3 years. To implement this concept, all resurfacing projects are scanned to estimate their needs and scope. These estimates are used for tentative plans (i.e., programming and letting schedule). To compensate for unanticipated delays in the delivery of some projects, additional "clean" projects (i.e., no complicating factors and amenable to rapid development) are added to the program. This approach is common, but not universal.

The NYSDOT resurfacing program involves different categories designated as 1R, 2R, and 3R, based on the pavement and nonpavement scope. Development periods vary. The 1R projects involve routine maintenance activities and can be delivered in as little as 4 months. The 2R projects, which involve more extensive pavement work (i.e., multiple layer overlay) and other potential improvements (i.e., cross-section improvements), can often be delivered in 12 months. The 3R projects often entail substantial pavement improvements, including sections of reconstruction, and geometric improvements. The development process may be complicated (e.g., substantial right-of-way, public involvement) and generally requires 2 to 3 years for completion. For several other agencies, the resurfacing program is developed from project identification through construction in 12 months or less. For IADOT, the typical timeframe from identification to construction of 3R projects is 3 years.

Figure 4. A series of arrows indicates how flexible project development lengths can accommodate incorporating safety improvements into planned maintenance projects.
Figure 4. Flexible project development cycles.

Institutional Practice 4 - Strengthen State-Local Relationships

Local government units (e.g., counties, towns, cities) have jurisdiction over approximately 75 percent of the public highway mileage in the United States. Ownership of two-lane rural roads is even more highly concentrated with local governments. State DOTs have direct responsibility and control over only a fraction of the facilities with the highest crash rates. Yet States can substantially influence local transportation efforts.

In addition to direct responsibility for State-owned highways, State DOTs provide valuable leadership and support to local transportation organizations. DOTs can support local efforts in many ways including funding, technical assistance, and identification of high-crash locations on locally owned highways and streets.

Most State DOTs assist local government units with the development of Federal-aid and State-aid projects through dedicated units/staff (e.g., local systems office, municipal services) that provide technical services and act as liaisons. Given the extent of locally owned highways, the Scan Team noted the importance of efforts to educate and share information with local jurisdictions. The benefits of information and analysis systems can be magnified by extending their application to local agencies. Many LTAP centers offer courses in low-cost safety improvements, resurfacing, pavement management and traffic safety. These topics are the basic building blocks for integrating safety improvements into resurfacing. A collaborative effort by DOT local government liaison units and LTAP centers would provide institutional encouragement and technical support for local government efforts.

Institutional Practice 5 - Develop a Procedure for Expedient Acquisition of Minor Rights-Of-Way

Right-of-way acquisition is often time consuming. When an otherwise desirable safety improvement is found to require additional right-of-way, the agency must decide between a delay in project delivery or omitting the improvement. Some agencies have a categorical policy: no right-of-way is to be acquired for resurfacing projects. Therefore, the combination of limited rights-of-way and a time-consuming acquisition process are a major impediment to improving safety through resurfacing projects. A streamlined process for acquiring small areas and slivers is very useful and increases the range of improvements that can practically be considered in resurfacing projects. NYSDOT has this authority (known as "de minimis"), and routinely employs it as part of resurfacing, especially for 2R projects.

Institutional Practice 6 - Engage Safety Experts in Project Development

Transportation agency missions have transitioned from system construction to system preservation and enhancement. Transportation organizations have evolved to meet the new mission. Responsibilities are being reassigned from headquarters to local DOT units (e.g., district/region offices) that are closer to the point of delivery. Deploying the needed expertise to local DOT offices is a challenge because technical specialists have traditionally been located in centralized bureaus. Safety analysis is a complex and evolving discipline. Specialized knowledge is required to identify cost-effective safety improvements. During the scan, a spectrum of arrangements was observed for engaging safety expertise in project development. In some State DOTs (e.g., Colorado, Utah), the central office bureaus are responsible for conducting the analyses and formulating recommendations, In other State DOTs, the central office safety office serves in an advisory and instructional role. For example, IADOT has decentralized 3R project delivery. The Office of Traffic and Safety, which previously had direct involvement in project development, was recast into an educational and resource role. In recent years, this office has worked diligently and successfully to instill a safety ethic and skill set within the district office design groups. Periodically, safety audits are conducted of completed resurfacing projects by teams of personnel from several organizations. In other States, safety analysis responsibilities are distributed between central and district/region offices. Both NYSDOT and PennDOT perform certain crash analysis functions and screening centrally and provided to the district/region offices. Each PennDOT district office has a safety review committee. The review and concurrence of these committees is needed for each 3R project.

TECHNICAL PRACTICES

Technical Practice 1 - Identify Targeted Safety Improvements

Selective safety upgrades can be integrated into resurfacing projects. Universal improvement to meet all current new-construction standards is not feasible from a cost or scheduling perspective. Identifying specific and cost-effective safety improvements requires consideration of infrastructure and crash data. PMS and other input are used to schedule pavement restoration. Comprehensive and accurate crash data is a valuable asset to safety analysts. Several States visited are systematically improving crash data through multiple location coding options (e.g., GPS, route and mile marker, street address), additional descriptive data fields, and electronic reporting and retrieval. During the scan, the Team observed several promising crash record and statistical analysis techniques.

The CDOT designs resurfacing projects through a unique approach. Safety improvements are identified largely on the basis of crash data analysis, rather than dimensional criteria. The Empirical Bayes statistical method is used to combine safety performance functions for categories of roadways and observed accident frequencies into a single estimate of the expected accident frequency. This analysis leads to a LOSS determination, which reflects the likelihood of improving safety through intervention.

"Data allows us to optimize the effectiveness of safety improvements."

Tom Welsh
Safety Engineer
Iowa DOT

In Iowa, crash data and analysis are developed and distributed to State and local agencies. Some reports on trends, year-to-year comparisons, and specific categories (e.g., motorcycle, fatal) are developed on a bi-weekly basis. The IADOT has a close and productive relationship with the Iowa State University, Governor's Traffic Safety Bureau, and the enforcement community. The Iowa Traffic Safety Data Service is a product of that partnership and provides users with readily available crash data analysis resources and uses geographic information systems technology. IADOT central and district offices, counties, and the enforcement community are principal users of these data and analyses.

Pennsylvania has an ambitious Low Cost Safety Improvement program. The implementation guidance developed by PennDOT's Bureau of Highway Safety and Traffic Engineering (BHSTE) identifies 12 crash categories and 13 suggested countermeasures, with each crash category having from one to five countermeasures. These safety improvements can be self-standing (i.e., safety only projects) or integrated into other projects, such as resurfacing. The BHSTE is developing additional analytic capabilities based on historical safety performance that assist in the selection of appropriate safety countermeasures. The UDOT Traffic and Safety unit prepares Operational Safety Reports for certain resurfacing projects. These safety reports recommend safety improvements and provide the benefit/cost ratio associated with implementation.

Technical Practice 2 - Make Selective Geometric Improvements

The Scan Team observed that agencies visited during the scan invest in a range of geometric improvements as part of resurfacing projects. Common improvements include:

Figures 5 through 10 illustrate examples of some of these types of improvements.

Figure 5. Photograph of an upgrade climbing lane added as part of a resurfacing project on a Colorado highway.
Figure 5. Upgrade climbing lane added with resurfacing in Colorado.

Figure 6. Photograph of added turn lane on Iowa roadway.
Figure 6. Addition of turning lane in Iowa. (Source: Courtesy of IADOT)

Figures 7 and 8. Before and after photographs of resurfacing and realigning a New York roadway to improve sight distance.

Figure 7. Before resurfacing and realignment in New York.

Figure 8. After resurfacing and realignment in New York.

Figures 9 and 10. Before and after photographs of a resurfacing project that also included cross-section improvements in Thurston County, Washington.

Figure 9. Before resurfacing and cross-section improvements in Thurston County, Washington.

Figure 10. After resurfacing and cross-section improvements in Thurston County, Washington.

Technical Practice 3 - Install Traffic Control Devices and Guidance

All agencies visited routinely install and/or upgrade selected traffic control devices in conjunction with resurfacing projects, including the following specific measures:

Several examples of these treatments are provided in figures 11 through 15.

Figure 11. Photograph of rumble stripe during installation on Iowa road. The edge line will be repainted after the rumble is cut.
Figure 11. Rumble stripe during construction in Iowa. (Note: edge lines are repainted after rumble stripe cut.). (Source: Courtesy of IADOT)

Figure 12. Photograph of centerline and edge rumble strips on Washington State roadway.
Figure 12. Centerline and edge rumble strips in Washington State.

Figure 13. Photograph showing sheet delineation on Colorado highway concrete median barrier.
Figure 13. Sheet delineation on median barrier in Colorado.

Figures 14. Before photographs of Iowa road horizontal curve improved by installing chevrons.
Figure 14. Before placement of chevrons on horizontal curve in Iowa. (Source: Courtesy of IADOT)

Figures 15. After photographs of Iowa road horizontal curve improved by installing chevrons.
Figure 15. After placement of chevrons on horizontal curve in Iowa. (Source: Courtesy of IADOT)

Technical Practice 4 - Improve Roadsides

All States visited on the scan are aware of how important the roadside is for rural highway safety. The roadside safety principles outlined in the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide are considered in developing resurfacing projects. Specific conditions (e.g., slopes, drainage structures, mail boxes, existing barrier systems) are addressed through a combination of policy, analysis and judgment.

PennDOT District 3 employs two strategies worthy of note-selective clearing and "Ground to Sky." Trees are part of the natural environment but pose a threat to errant vehicles when located close to a roadway. PennDOT has an initiative of selectively removing trees within the right-of-way. Locations and corridors are identified using GIS data. A dense forest canopy prevents sunlight from reaching the road surface and contributes to slick driving conditions, including black ice. The Ground to Sky treatment removes trees and branches thereby allowing sunlight to reach the roadway surface. Public opposition to tree removal (for both strategies) is sometimes strong. PennDOT has instituted procedures to reduce negative reactions. Adjacent landowners are provided with advance notice of removal and may be allowed to retrieve the harvested wood. PennDOT tracks the safety records of roadways where tree countermeasures are used and reports positive results.

All agencies evaluate and selectively include countermeasures in resurfacing projects to reduce the frequency and severity of run-off-road crashes, which are overrepresented on two-lane rural roads. The following strategies were observed during the scan:

Figures 16 through 26 show several examples of roadside interventions.

Figure 16. Photograph of bridge approach rail on Iowa road.
Figure 16. Bridge approach rail, Iowa. (Source: Courtesy of IADOT)

Figure 17. Photograph of traversable culvert grate that conforms to shoulder slope on Iowa road.

Figure 17. Traversable culvert grate, Iowa. (Source: Courtesy of IADOT)

Figure 18. Photograph of culvert extension that provides added clear recovery width adjacent to Iowa road.

Figure 18. Culvert extension in Iowa. (Source: Courtesy of IADOT)

Figure 19. Photograph of full shoulder pavement with shoulder backup on Pennsylvania road.

Figure 19. Full shoulder pavement with shoulder backup in Pennsylvania.

Figure 20. Photograph of "safety edge" on New York road to mitigate pavement edge drop off.

Figure 20. Safety edge in New York.

Figure 21. Photograph of box beam guardrail on New York road.

Figure 21. Box beam guardrail in New York. (Source: Courtesy of NYSDOT)

Figure 22. Photograph of Scan Team members at guardrail terminal and pavement on Colorado road.

Figure 22.Guardrail terminal and pavement in Colorado.

Figures 23 and 24. Close-up and distance photographs of crashworthy mailbox on Washington State roadway.

Figure 23. Crashworthy mailbox installation in Washington State.

Figure 24. Close up of a crashworthy mailbox installation in Washington State.

Figures 26 and 27. Photographs of New York road before and after relocating utility pole away from the pavement edge.

Figure 25. Before utility pole relocation in New York.
Figure 26. After utility pole relocation in New York.

Technical Practice 5 - Improve Private and Public Access Points

Access points are locations of inherent conflict. At-grade intersections and property access design techniques can be employed to eliminate or manage conflicts. The following types of access improvements are included in resurfacing projects by agencies visited during the scan:

An agency's ability to change existing access points and regulate additional access is based primarily on statutory and regulatory authority. Agencies with limited authority may request but not require modification, consolidation, and elimination of access points. Of the States visited, Colorado has the most legislative authority to control access. CDOT routinely modifies access points as part of its resurfacing projects. IADOT also strives to improve existing access points.

Figures 27 through 30 illustrate a selection of access modifications.

Figure 27. Photograph of safety dike on Iowa road.

Figure 27. Safety dike in Iowa. (Source: Courtesy of IADOT)

Figure 28. Photograph of realignment of three New York intersecting roadways to reduce or eliminate skew.

Figure 28. Realignment of intersecting roadways (reduce/eliminate skew) in New York.(Source: Courtesy of NYSDOT)

Figure 29. Photograph of vertical realignment to improve sight distance where two Iowa county roads intersect.

Figure 29. Alteration of vertical alignment to improve sight distance at the intersection of two county roads in Iowa.

Figure 30. Photograph of farm field entrance slope flattening at an Iowa road to improve recovery area for the through road.

Figure 30. Farm field entrance slope flattening in Iowa. (Source: Courtesy of IADOT)

< Previous Table of Contents Next >
Page last modified on October 15, 2014
Safe Roads for a Safer Future - Investment in roadway safety saves lives
Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000