• Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
• Intersection Safety
• Local & Rural Road Safety
• Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety
• Roadway Departure Safety
  • Crash Facts
  • Technical Assistance/Tools
  • Policy/Guidance
  • Research/Resources
  • Retroreflectivity & Visibility
  • Roadside Hardware
• Speed Management Safety
• Additional Safety Programs & Initiatives
  • Proven Safety Countermeasures
  • Capacity Building
  • Crash Data Improvement Program (CDIP)
  • Crash Tested Hardware
  • Facts & Statistics
  • Focused Approach
  • Geometric Design
  • Highway Safety Manual
  • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
  • Motorcycles
  • Newsletters
  • Older Road Users
  • Policy & Guidelines
  • Railway-Highway Grade Crossings
  • Road Safety Audits (RSA)
  • Roadway Safety Data Partnership
  • Safe Routes to School
  • SAFETEA–LU
  • Safety Research
  • Section 402 Highway Safety Funds
  • Tools & Technology
  • Toward Zero Deaths
  • Work Zones

Home > Roadway Departure Safety > Strategic Approach to Roadway Departure

SAMPLE Roadway Departure Safety Implementation Plan

U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration

FHWA-HOP-11-032

Download the Printable Version [PDF, 300 KB]
You will need the Adobe Acrobat Reader to view this PDF.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Background

The Roadway Departure Safety Goal

The Approach

Distribution of the State Roadway Departure Fatality Problem

Summary of Roadway Departure Crash Concerns

Summary of Roadway Departure Countermeasure Deployments

Key First Steps

Major Components of the Plan

Systematic Deployment of Low-Cost Countermeasures

Enhanced Sign and Markings to Reduce Roadway Departures on Curves

Centerline Rumble Strips to Reduce Head-On and Opposing-Flow Sideswipe Crashes

Edge Line Rumble Stripes and Shoulder Rumble Strips to Reduce Road Departure Crashes

Select Tree Removal in Rural Areas to Reduce Future Tree Crash Occurrences

Comprehensive Education, Enforcement, and Engineering (3-E) Improvements

A. Targeted Corridor Education and Enforcement (No or Very Minor Infrastructure Improvements)

B. Targeted 3-E Engineering, Education, and Enforcement for Corridors

C. Targeted Engineering, Education, and Enforcement for Cities

Deployment of Traditional Roadway Departure Countermeasures

Roadway Departure Countermeasures on Local Roads

Key Implementation Steps

Incorporation of Low-Cost, Cost-Effective Countermeasures at Crash Locations within the Limits of Work for Programmed Projects

Key Implementation Steps

Deployment and Evaluation of New Roadway Departure Countermeasures

Performance Measures

Production Performance Measures

Effectiveness Performance Measures – Program Effectiveness in Reducing Targeted Crashes

Summary

List of Tables

Table 1: State Roadway Departure Fatalities

Table 2: Roadway Departure Crashes, and Fatalities by Locality – 2004-2008

Table 3: Summary of Roadway Departure Fatalities, Crashes, and Fatalities per 100 Crashes – 2004-2008

Table 4: Enforcement and Education-Related Roadway Departure Crashes by Human Factor and Locality – 2004-2008

Table 5: Roadway Departure Crashes by Crash Type, Number of Crashes, and Number of Fatalities--2004-2008

Table 6: Summary of Countermeasure Deployment Levels and Estimated Safety Impacts

Table 7: Summary of 5 Year Curve Crashes (2004-2008)

Table 8: Enhanced Signs and Markings for Curves – Curve Roadway Departure Crashes – State Rural Roads (2004-2008)

Table 9: Enhanced Signs and Markings for Curves Plus Flashing Beacons – Curve Roadway Departure Crashes – State Rural Roads (2004-2008)

Table 10: Enhanced Signs and Markings for Curves – Curve Roadway Departure Crashes – State Urban Roads (2004-2008)

Table 11: Basic Set of Sign and Marking Improvements – State Curve Roadway Departures (2004-2008)

Table 12: Centerline Rumble Stripes – Head-On and Sideswipe, Opposite Direction Crashes – State Rural Roads ≥ 22 Feet Road Width (2004-2008)

Table 13: Centerline Rumble Stripes – Head-On and Sideswipe, Opposite Direction Crashes – ≥ 20 and < 22 Feet Road Width – State Rural Roads – Potential Full Impact if Pilot is Successful (2004-2008)

Table 14: Centerline Rumble Strips – Head-On & Sideswipe, Opposite Direction Crashes – ? 22 Feet Road Width – State Urban Roads – Potential Full Impact if Pilot is Successful (2004-2008)

Table 15: Summary of Edge Line Rumble Stripe and Shoulder Rumble Strip Deployments (2004-2008)

Table 16: Tree Removal/Safety Enhancements – Tree Crashes (Any Harmful Event) – State Rural Roads (2004-2008)

Table 17: Enhanced Corridor Enforcement – Roadway Departure Crashes – Speed-Related or Unbelted Driver – State Roads – Interstates (2004-2008)

Table 18: Enhanced Corridor Enforcement – Roadway Departure Crashes – Speed-Related or Unbelted Driver – Not Interstates (2004-2008)

Table 19: Enhanced Corridor Enforcement – Roadway Departure Crashes – Alcohol-Related – State Roads (2004-2008)

Table 20: Key Implementation Steps for Roadway Departure Education and Enforcement Strategies (2004-2008)

Table 21: Candidate Corridors for 3-E (Engineering, Education, Enforcement) Initiatives (2004-2008)

Table 22: Key Implementation Steps for 3-E Corridor Enhancements

Table 23: Summary of Roadway Departure Crashes by Major City (2004-2008)

Table 24: Key Implementation Steps for Roadway Departure City-Wide 3E Improvements

Table 25: Median Barrier – Head-On and Sideswipe, Opposite Direction Crashes – Raised Mountable, Flush, and Depressed Median Types – State Rural Roads (2004-2008)

Table 26: Key Steps to Consider Median Enhancements to Reduce Head-On and Opposing Side-Swipe Crashes on Restricted Access High-Speed Highways

Table 27: High Friction Surfaces – Roadway Departure Crashes – Wet – State Rural Roads (2004-2008)

Table 28: Key Steps to Consider Median Enhancements To Reduce Head-On and Opposing Side-Swipe Crashes on Restricted Access High-Speed Highways

Table 29: Enhanced Signs and Markings for Curves – Curve Roadway Departure Crashes – Local Roads (2004-2008)

Table 30: Key Implementation Steps for Basic Set of Sign and Marking Improvements – Local Curves

Table 31: Key Implementation Steps for Considering the Inclusion of Low-Cost, Cost-Effective Countermeasures in Other Programmed Projects

Table 32: Infrastructure Traffic Calming Measures to Reduce Speeding-Related Crashes – State and Local Roads (2004-2008)

Table 33: Key Steps to Evaluate New Roadway Departure Countermeasures

Table 34: Production Performance Measures

Table 35: Performance Measures

Executive Summary

Note: The following document is an example Roadway Departure (RD) Safety Implementation Plan for a fictional State with fictional characteristics (e.g., number and types of RD crashes, implementation costs, and benefits). The purpose of this document is to give readers a general idea of the structure and content of the RD Safety Implementation Plans. It should not be used for State-specific data analysis, countermeasure selection or other decision-making safety management processes.

The State Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) has a safety goal of reducing the number of annual roadway fatalities within the State to no more than XXX by the end of XXXX.

Roadway departure fatalities account for approximately XX percent of all fatalities in STATE. A data analysis package along with a set of roadway departure countermeasures was merged to identify a set of cost effective countermeasures, deployment levels, and funds needed to achieve a XX percent roadway departure fatality reduction goal.

The data analysis indicates that the roadway departure goal can be achieved with the following enhancements to the safety program:

• The traditional approach of relying primarily on pursuing major improvements at high-crash roadway departure locations must be complemented with a) a systematic approach that involves deploying large numbers of relatively low-cost, cost-effective countermeasures at many targeted high-crash roadway departures and b) a comprehensive approach that coordinates an engineering, education, and enforcement (3E) initiative on corridors and in urban areas with large numbers of severe roadway departure crashes.
• The systematic improvement categories to be deployed include the following: sign and marking enhancements on curves with crash histories, centerline rumble strips on rural two-lane highways, edge line rumble stripes and shoulder rumble strips, installation of micro-texture or similar high skid surfaces, and selective rural tree removal program.
• The systematic and comprehensive approaches will generate a much larger number of roadway departure improvements statewide, and District personnel will have to be trained and take a more active role in identifying the appropriateness of systematic improvements within their Districts.
• The safety program needs to be expanded to incorporate low-cost, cost-effective countermeasures on other types of projects, such as resurfacing and surface transportation projects, when a crash history exists within the area of the work and the countermeasures can reduce future crash potential.
  • Use of the Safety Edge
• The safety program must encompass cost-effective treatments on local roads since a sizeable portion of the statewide roadway departure crash problem occurs on local roads.
• Additional countermeasures rarely or never used in this state need to be carefully and judiciously deployed on highway sections that have specific crash problems that these countermeasures can address. The countermeasure should be evaluated to determine if more widespread use is appropriate.
• To achieve the roadway departure safety goal, it will take an investment of approximately $XX million over the 5-year period or X million per year. In addition, X million annually will be needed for education and enforcement initiatives on corridors and cities.

This plan provides specific information on how these additions to the current safety program can be effectively implemented.

The bottom line for a successful plan implementation is that, once fully implemented over a 10-year period, approximately XX, XXX roadway departure crashes and almost XXXX disabling injury crashes will be prevented, and more than XXX lives will be saved.

Background

The Roadway Departure Safety Goal

Over the past several years, STATE has had continued reductions in roadway departure fatalities as indicated in Table 1.

Table 1: State Roadway Departure Fatalities

	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	Total
Number of Roadway Departure Fatalities	547	596	538	496	469	2,846

The roadway departure goal is to reduce the XXX roadway departure fatalities that occurred in XXXX by XX percent by XXXX, or to prevent approximately XX additional roadway departure deaths from occurring annually.

The Approach

The HSIP program has been based upon a traditional approach directed towards improving roadway safety at specific high-crash locations by identifying and analyzing individual crashes at the locations, defining crash patterns, determining appropriate countermeasures to reduce future crash potential, and then implementing those countermeasures. While this is an important approach and needs to continue, it has limited impact in terms of reducing statewide numbers of roadway departure fatalities.

To help lower statewide roadway departure fatalities, two additional approaches are recommended to complement the traditional approach:

• Systematic application of large numbers of cost-effective, low-cost countermeasures at locations that have specific, moderate crash types above a specified crash frequency level.
• Comprehensive application of low-cost infrastructure improvements coupled with targeted education and enforcement initiatives on corridors and in municipalities that exhibit a very high severe roadway departure crash history.

In the systematic approach, the first step is to identify low-cost countermeasures. Then the crash data system is searched to identify highway sections that have targeted crashes at or above a crash threshold that would ensure cost-effective deployment of these countermeasures. Estimates of the impacts of the deployments can be made in terms of projected statewide roadway departure crashes prevented, annual lives saved, and overall deployment costs.

The comprehensive approach combines sets of cost-effective, low-cost infrastructure countermeasures with a coordinated set of education and highly visible enforcement initiatives targeted to reduce severe roadway departure crashes on corridors and within municipalities that have a severe roadway departure crash history.

Three other features need to be added to the plan to better improve the ability to achieve the safety improvement goal:

1. The safety program should be expanded to incorporate low-cost, cost-effective countermeasures on other types of projects such as resurfacing and surface transportation projects – especially if a crash history exists within the area of the work and the countermeasure can reduce future crash potential.
2. The safety program should include cost-effective treatments on local roads since a portion of the statewide roadway departure crash problem occurs on local roads.
3. Additional countermeasures rarely or never used in STATE need to be carefully and judiciously deployed on highway sections that have specific crash problems that these countermeasures can address. The countermeasure should be evaluated to determine if more widespread use is appropriate.

Distribution of the State Roadway Departure Fatality Problem

The roadway departure crash and fatality data for STATE was analyzed to gain insight on the distribution and characteristics of the roadway departure crash problem. Key information derived from the roadway departure data analysis is shown in Tables 2-5.

Table 3: Summary of Roadway Departure Fatalities, Crashes, and Fatalities per 100 Crashes – 2004-2008

Locality	State Rural	State Urban	Local
All RD Crashes
Fatalities	1,881	358	402
Crashes	75,281	31,708	43,661
Fat/100 Crashes	2.49	1.13	0.92
Interstate RD Crashes
Fatalities	117	75	-
Crashes	6,296	8,973	-
Fat/100 Crashes	1.86	0.84	-
State Route Type RD Crashes
Fatalities	1,318	168	-
Crashes	52,288	14,411	-
Fat/100 Crashes	2.52	1.12	-
US Route Type RD Crashes
Fatalities	429	100	-
Crashes	14,350	7,372	-
Fat/100 Crashes	2.99	1.36	-
Other Route Type RD State Crashes
Fatalities	22	15	-
Crashes	2,347	952	-
Fat/100 Crashes	0.93	1.57	-

Summary of Roadway Departure Crash Concerns

• Crashes predominantly occur in rural areas; severity of crashes is greater in rural areas than urban areas.
• Approximately 25 percent of the fatalities involve head-on or opposing-flow sideswipe crashes.
• Driving violations (speeding, alcohol, and unbelted driving) are major factors in roadway departure crashes. Many of these crashes involve multiple driving violation factors.

Summary of Roadway Departure Countermeasure Deployments

A summary of the countermeasures, deployment levels, costs, and estimated lives saved provided in Table 6.

Key First Steps

There are several key first steps that need to be taken before actual countermeasure implementation activities begin.

1. The draft implementation plan should be presented to the Districts and other affected Headquarters organizations to share, review, provide input, and understand the conceptual enhancements to the safety program.
2. Initial preparatory materials need to be developed, training provided, and processes established to begin implementation of the low-cost countermeasures being considered for systematic deployment. These countermeasures include sign and marking enhancements for curves, centerline rumble strips on rural non-freeway highways, edge line and shoulder rumble strips, and tree removal in rural areas.
3. Meetings need to be arranged with appropriate Maintenance, Design, and Planning personnel to further explore and define the processes and responsibilities that need to be developed to consider the incorporation of low-cost, cost-effective countermeasures into other program categories such as the resurfacing program and the surface transportation improvement program. The primary low-cost countermeasures to consider for inclusion in other project types at targeted high-crash sections are as follows: sign and marking enhancements for horizontal curves, centerline rumble strips in rural areas, edge line and shoulder rumble strips, expansion of the use of the pavement wedge from safety projects to all projects, tree removal in rural areas, and higher friction surfaces and/or surface drainage improvements.
4. Meetings need to be arranged with the Governor's Highway Safety Representative and appropriate police personnel to review the crash data that identifies highway sections with concentrations of speeding, unbelted, and alcohol-related crash histories. Targeted enforcement and education initiatives need to be developed and considered for implementation at many of these locations to reduce the potential for future similar crashes.
5. Data needs to be further analyzed and shared with regional and division personnel along with the Governor's Highway Safety Representative to identify candidate corridors and cities for the 3-E comprehensive initiatives.
6. The Roadway Departure Safety Committee created under the Strategic Highway Safety Plan should provide guidance and address issues and problems that arise during the implementation of the program. The committee should meet on a planned quarterly basis throughout the implementation phase.
7. The STATE DOT LEAD OFFICE should develop and deploy a tracking system to monitor the implementation of the various types of countermeasures being deployed. This system should include forms designed to secure "before" and "after" targeted crash histories, dates of implementation, linkages to other roadway departure improvements being implemented under other programs, and other information deemed pertinent.

Major Components of the Plan

The remaining sections of this plan provides a detailed description of key implementation steps for each of the major efforts needed to achieve a XX percent reduction in roadway departure fatalities. The efforts are categorized as follows:

• Systematic deployment of low-cost, cost-effective countermeasures.
• Incorporation of low-cost, cost-effective countermeasures into other programmed projects.
• Local road improvements
• Comprehensive 3-E improvements.
• Traditional improvements.
• Implementation of new countermeasures.

Systematic Deployment of Low-Cost Countermeasures

This initiative involves the installation of several sets of low-cost, cost-effective countermeasures at locations with high crash histories to decrease the potential of future crashes significantly. Four types of low-cost countermeasures have been identified for extensive systematic deployment as follows:

1. Enhanced sign and marking improvements for curves with crash histories.
2. Centerline rumble strips to reduce head-on and opposing-flow sideswipe crashes.
3. Edge line and shoulder rumble strips to reduce single vehicle roadway departure crashes.
4. Select tree removal or tree crash prevention countermeasures in rural areas to reduce future tree crash occurrences.

In addition to the above countermeasures, one other countermeasure may be deployed either systematically or as part of the traditional approach: surface friction enhancements to reduce the potential of future wet weather crashes.

The methodology to identify sections of a highway that have crashes at or above the threshold breaks down a roadway in uniform, discrete section lengths and identifies sections with a number of targeted crash types that equal or exceed the defined threshold. However, the output from this process needs refinement based upon field conditions or overall route characteristics. For more advanced analyses, additional methods and analysis tools are available in the Highway Safety Manual.

As an example, a single curve could have portions and crashes in two joining sections. Thus curve crashes on either side of a section identified as a high-crash curve section need to be reviewed to determine if there are any additional curve crashes that occurred on the same curve but in the adjoining section. As another example, a rural highway may be 10 miles in length and 75 percent of the sections on the route meet the crash threshold for edge line /shoulder rumble strips. For routes with numerous sections that meet the crash threshold, the application of edge line rumble strips on the entire route rather than just those sections that meet the threshold needs to be considered. This may be determined by field review or GIS mapping.

The Traffic Safety Unit has the list of sections of highway that equal or exceed the crash thresholds for each of these countermeasures.

Enhanced Sign and Markings to Reduce Roadway Departures on Curves

Curves on rural State highways with the number of crashes at or above threshold levels and considered for sign and marking enhancements are summarized in Table 8.

Within the set of curves identified in Table 8, those curves with higher crash levels in which the addition of flashing beacons on the advanced curve warning signs can be considered are provided in Table 9.

Curves on urban State highways that have crashes at or above crash thresholds in which sign and marking enhancements are to be considered are summarized in Table 10.

The proposed signing and marking treatments for these curves is as follows:

• Oversize advanced fluorescent yellow curve warning signs, both left and right.
• Chevrons with spacing in accordance with the 2009 MUTCD.
• Advisory speed plates beneath the advanced warning sign using a standardized approach to determine the appropriate advisory speed.
• "SLOW" and curve symbol pavement markings in advance of the curve. Note that the curve pavement marking symbol layout must receive FHWA approval. In addition alternate methods to slow high end approach speeds such as the use of peripheral transverse pavement markings will also be considered.
• Elimination of any pavement edge drop offs two inches or greater in depth.

A summary of these enhancements including an estimated number of deployments, costs, and annual crashes, incapacitating injury crashes, and fatalities prevented is provided in Table 11.

The basic steps and schedule to implement this initiative are as follows:

1. Gain management acceptance of the Roadway Departure Safety Implementation Plan.
2. Traffic Headquarters develops guidelines and a standard template treatment for curves that are at or above the threshold in the above tables. The guidelines will be issued to the District personnel for implementation. Note that the guidance will provide a process to consider treatment and funding alternatives for similar sharp curves on the same route.

Schedule: Guidelines issued within 6 months of acceptance of the Plan

3. District personnel will use guidelines and template(s) to field review each identified curve with crashes and determine appropriate sign and marking improvements. District personnel will assemble District wide or county wide contract plans to implement the improvements.

Schedule: Curve sign and marking recommendations completed within 12 months of acceptance of the Plan

4. Contracts will be let and improvements will be implemented

Schedule: Sign and marking enhancements for all curves completed within 24 months of acceptance of the Plan

Centerline Rumble Strips to Reduce Head-On and Opposing-Flow Sideswipe Crashes

Center line rumble strips will be implemented under two scenarios as follows

1. Systematic deployment of centerline rumble strips on two- and multi-lane undivided rural highways with a pavement width of at least 22 ft. and a crash threshold of at least X or more head-on and opposing-flow sideswipe crashes in a 15,000 ft. stretch of rural highway occurring in the past 5 years of crash data.
2. Pilot evaluation of deploying centerline rumble strips on the following highway types:
   1. Two lane undivided rural highways with a pavement width between 20 and 22 ft. and a crash threshold of at least X or more head-on and opposing-flow sideswipe crashes in a 15,000 ft. stretch of rural highway occurring in the past 5 years of crash data.
   2. Two- and multi-lane undivided urban highways with a pavement width of at least 22 ft. and a crash threshold of at least X or more head-on and opposing-flow sideswipe crashes in a 15,000 ft. stretch of urban highway occurring in the past 5 years of crash data.

The summary of high-crash, head-on, opposing flow sideswipe sections where centerline rumble strips are to be considered for installation on state rural highways at least 22 ft. in width are summarized in Table 12. The actual locations of these sections reside in the Office of Traffic Operations.

The basic steps and schedule to implement this initiative are as follows:

Rural Highways 22 Ft. or Greater in Width Highway Sections with Head-on and Opposing Flow Crashes at or Above the Crash Threshold

1. Gain management acceptance of the Roadway Departure Safety Implementation Plan.
2. Traffic Headquarters will develop guidelines and a standard template treatment for centerline rumble strips that are at or above the threshold in the above tables. The guidelines will be issued to District personnel for implementation. Note that the guidance will provide a process to consider the treatment and funding alternatives for providing centerline rumble strips on the entire or major portion of the route. The guidelines will also address pavement condition: if the pavement is old and deteriorated (at least 5 years old) or showing signs of visible distress, the application of centerline rumble strips may be deferred and incorporated into the next overlay of the section.

Schedule: Guidelines issued within 6 months of acceptance of the Plan.

3. District personnel will use the guidelines and template(s) to field review each identified highway section with crashes and determine the appropriateness of installing centerline rumble strips now or deferring until the next overlay. District personnel will assemble a District wide or county wide contract plans to implement the improvements.

Schedule: Centerline rumble strip locations within the District on rural State highways 22 ft. or wider are finalized within 12 months of acceptance of the Plan.

4. Contracts will be let and improvements will be implemented.

Schedule: Centerline rumble strips in place within 30 months of acceptance of the Plan.

Centerline Rumble Strips on Rural Highways between 20 and 22 Feet Wide

5. Gain management acceptance of the Roadway Departure Safety Implementation Plan.
6. The Safety Office, in conjunction with the Design Office, will develop guidelines and a standard template treatment for centerline rumble strips to be installed at locations meeting the threshold in the above table. The guidelines will be issued to region personnel for implementation. Note that the guidance will provide a process to consider the treatment and funding alternatives for providing centerline rumble strips on the entire route or a major portion of the route.
   1. The guidelines will also address pavement condition. If the pavement is old and deteriorated (e.g., approximately 5 years old or more) or showing signs of visible distress, the application of centerline rumble strips may be deferred and incorporated into the next overlay of the section.

Schedule: Guidelines issued within 6 months of acceptance of the Plan.

7. Region personnel will use the guidelines and template(s) to field review each identified highway section with crashes to determine the appropriateness of installing centerline rumble strips now or deferring until the next overlay. Region personnel will assemble a region-wide or county-wide contract plans to implement the improvements.

Schedule: Centerline rumble strip locations within the region on rural State highways are finalized within 12 months of acceptance of the Plan.

8. Contracts will be let and improvements will be implemented.

Schedule: Centerline rumble strips in place within 30 months of acceptance of the Plan.

Edge Line Rumble Stripes and Shoulder Rumble Strips to Reduce Road Departure Crashes

Edge line and shoulder rumble strips will be implemented under two scenarios as follows:

1. Systematic deployment of edge line rumble stripes or shoulder strips will be considered on 55 MPH two- and multi-lane rural highways with a width of 22 ft. or wider and possessing a crash threshold of at least five or more single vehicle roadway departure crashes in a 3,000 ft. stretch of roadway in the past 5 years. If a paved shoulder is available, at least 4 ft. in width and in good structural condition, shoulder rumble strips should be considered; otherwise, edge line rumble stripes should be used.
2. Pilot evaluation of deploying edge line rumble stripes on 45-50 MPH two- and multi-lane rural highways with a width of 22 ft. or wider and possessing a crash threshold of at least five or more single vehicle roadway departure crashes in a 3,000 ft. stretch of roadway in the past 5 years.

The summary of high-crash, single vehicle sections where edge line and shoulder rumble strips are to be considered for installation are summarized in Table 15. The actual locations of these sections reside in the Office of Traffic Operations.

1. Gain management acceptance of the Roadway Departure Safety Implementation Plan.
2. Traffic Headquarters will develop guidelines and a standard template treatment for edge line rumble stripes and shoulder rumble strips to apply on highway sections that are at or above the threshold in the above tables and issue the guidelines and template to District personnel for implementation. Note that the guidance will provide a process to consider the treatment and funding alternatives for considering the application of edge line rumble stripes and shoulder rumble strips on the entire route rather than on just those sections of the route that are at or above the crash threshold. The guidelines will also address pavement condition: if the pavement is old and deteriorated (at least 5 years old) or showing signs of visible distress, the application of rumble strips may be deferred and incorporated into the next overlay of the section. The guidelines will also consider applications in areas with concentrations of residences that are close to the highway where noise could become a significant concern. In addition, if the section is part of a designated bicycle route or has significant bicycle activity, edge line rumble stripes and shoulder rumble strips will be further evaluated to determine the appropriateness of applying rumble stripes or strips.

Schedule: Guidelines issued within 6 months of acceptance of the Plan.

3. District personnel will use guidelines and template(s) to field review each identified highway section with crashes and determine appropriateness of installing edge line rumble stripes or shoulder rumble strips now or deferring until the next overlay. District personnel will assemble District wide or county wide contract plans to implement the improvements.

Schedule: Sections and routes identified for edge line rumble stripes or shoulder installations identified within 12 months of acceptance of the Plan.

4. Contracts will be let and improvements will be implemented.

Schedule: All identified edge line/shoulder rumble strip sections and routes implemented within 30 months of acceptance of the Plan.

Select Tree Removal in Rural Areas to Reduce Future Tree Crash Occurrences

The fixed object associated with the greatest number of roadway departure fatalities is trees. Most of these fatalities occur in rural areas. One of the challenges associated with this initiative is that tree removal alone may not be the sole low-cost countermeasure that needs to be implemented; removal or relocation of other vulnerable fixed objects also needs to be considered. In addition, many vulnerable trees may be located beyond the ditch line and on private property. Processes need to be developed to work with the property owner to allow for removal (or replace the tree at a less vulnerable location or with more crash-impact-friendly shrubbery). In addition, some sections with high numbers of tree crashes will not be suitable for tree removal, and alternate countermeasures such as edge line rumble strips or delineation may be considered to reduce the likelihood of tree collisions.

A hierarchy of questions that need asked in identifying the appropriate countermeasure to reduce future tree crashes is as follows:

• Should/can the tree be removed?
• If the answer is yes, are there other improvements needed to improve the safety of the section such as removing other vulnerable fixed objects and minor re-grading?
• Also, if the tree is off the right of way, can arrangements be made to accommodate the property owner to have the tree removed?
• If the tree can't be removed, would shielding result in a significant safety benefit? If shielding will not substantially improve safety, can other alternatives such as applying edge line rumble strips and wrapping delineation around the tree reduce the potential for future tree crashes?

The number of sections, crash threshold, costs, and safety impact of this initiative is provided in Table 16.

The basic steps and schedule to implement this initiative are as follows:

1. Gain management acceptance to the Roadway Departure Safety Implementation Plan.
2. Traffic Headquarters will develop guidelines and a standard template treatment for tree removal/treatments and issue them to District personnel for implementation. Note that the guidance will provide a process to consider removal of trees both within and beyond right-of-way limits; property owner considerations; other complementary roadway departure countermeasures such as the removal of other fixed objects adjacent to the trees and minor re-grading to create a clear zone; identification and options for considering environmental and historical factors associated with the vulnerable trees; and a set of alternate countermeasures including edge line rumble strips and tree delineation to reduce the likelihood of tree crashes should the tree not be removed.

Schedule: Guidelines issued within 9 months of acceptance of the Plan.

3. District personnel will use guidelines and template(s) to field review each identified tree section with crashes and determine appropriate tree removal or mitigation improvements. District personnel will assemble District wide or county wide contract plans to implement the improvements.

Schedule: Improvement sets identified for all identified sections within 18 months of acceptance of the Plan

4. 4. Contracts will be let and improvements will be implemented.

Schedule: All identified improvements implemented within 36 months of acceptance of the Plan.

Comprehensive Education, Enforcement, and Engineering (3-E) Improvements

This initiative involves a three pronged approach involving the actions summarized below.

A. Targeted Corridor Education and Enforcement (No or Very Minor Infrastructure Improvements)

This initiative combines education and enforcement actions on corridors stretching 5-miles in length that have high concentrations of roadway departure crashes involving speeding and unbelted drivers and roadway departure crashes involving alcohol.

The data was analyzed to identify 9,000-ft. sections of highway that have concentrations of speed or unbelted driver crashes both on and off the Interstate as well as concentrations of alcohol-related crashes. The speed and unbelted driver crashes were combined because the enforcement tactics to impact these types of violations are complementary. Alcohol-related crashes are concentrated in the late evening-early morning hours and the enforcement tactics emphasize sobriety checkpoints. Therefore, the alcohol enforcement sections were separated from the other enforcement sections. Summaries of the targeted sections for education and enforcement are provided in Tables 17 through 19.

The crash data has identified XX Interstate and XXX non-Interstate sections of highway of 9,000 ft. in length that have high concentrations of speed-related or unbelted injury crashes. In addition, XXX sections with high concentrations of alcohol-related roadway departure crashes have been identified. This effort involves inviting representative of the police personnel responsible for enforcement along these sections to initiate a coordinated education and enforcement approach by using a combination of targeted education and highly visible enforcement strategies. The objective of the effort is to reduce roadway departure fatalities on these sections by a minimum of XX percent. Some minor infrastructure improvements to provide roadside areas where enforcement personnel can safely pull cited drivers off the highway may also be needed. The effort begins with a preliminary meeting with the Governor's Highway Safety Representative to determine potential sources of revenue to finance the initiative. Following funding source analyses, meetings are arranged with appropriate police organizations responsible for enforcement along the identified sections of highway to determine interest in initiating a comprehensive education and enforcement initiative to reduce the number of future speed- and alcohol-related crashes and the number of drivers and occupants that have been severely injured or killed because they weren't buckled up.

Key Steps for Implementing Education and Enforcement Safety Corridors

Phase 1 – Preparatory

1. Perform an analysis of the crash data along the corridor to identify crash patterns that can be addressed by targeted education or enforcement actions.
2. Determine if there are safety grants that could be used to improve safety along the corridor and if adjustments to these grants should be considered to reduce the potential for future roadway departure crashes through an increase in targeted enforcement in the corridor.

Phase II – Meet with Appropriate Police Personnel

1. Arrange a meeting with police responsible for enforcement on the corridors.
2. Apprise the police of the concentration of targeted driver-related crashes on the candidate corridors.
3. Request a written commitment to enhance enforcement on the identified corridors. Indicate that the STATE DOT will consider placing special "targeted enforcement" signing on the corridor if a written commitment of at least 10 to 15 hours of visible and active enforcement directed at the driver violations cited in the targeted crashes is provided on the corridor.
4. Advise the meeting participants, if a written commitment for enforcement will be provided, that the data and the increased enforcement should be shared with the media in a joint press conference.
5. Collectively agree on an initial set of corridors on which to implement the enforcement measures, develop a coordinated strategy and schedule to announce the information to the media, and begin visible enforcement. Also, agree on an education component to apprise motorists of the increased targeted enforcement on the corridor, including the potential to install targeted enforcement signs. Agree to a 6 to 12 month follow-up meeting to evaluate the impact of the initiative and determine whether further actions are needed and if the initiative should be expanded to remaining corridors.

Phase III – Implementation

1. Meet with magistrates or District justices who have jurisdiction over the selected traffic corridor, explain the driver safety crash concerns on the corridor, and ask for their input and cooperation when visible enforcement begins.
2. Install the targeted enforcement corridor signs if appropriate.
3. Begin visible enforcement.
4. Hold a joint DOT/police press event for the corridor.
5. Periodically meet with police and magistrates to monitor enforcement levels and obtain any insight from police on observed changes in driving habits as a result of the added enforcement and signing. If anything newsworthy results, provide a press release.

Phase IV – Evaluation

1. After a full year of crash data becomes available, perform a "before and after" comparison of crashes on the corridor that may indicate a change in targeted crashes that the enforcement has reduced (e.g., alcohol, speeding, unbelted) in the "after" period to the crash statistics from the "before" period. Continue monitoring until 3 years of "after" period data are available for analysis, and then complete a before/after study.
2. Potentially include a "before and after" comparison of speed distributions and a safety belt survey to determine if high-end speeding is being reduced and if more people are buckling up on the route.
3. Meet with the police, share the evaluation information, and make a determination as to whether the initiative should be expanded to the remaining corridors.
4. Methodology as outlined in Chapter 9 of the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) should be used for the assessment of safety changes related to the countermeasures applied. It can also help influence future decisions related to funding of these suggested countermeasures (see chapter 7 of HSM).

B. Targeted 3-E Engineering, Education, and Enforcement for Corridors

Table 21 identifies 5-mile long corridors with the highest concentrations of severe roadway departure crashes that are candidates for combined education, enforcement, and engineering initiatives.

The crash data has identified XX State route corridors that have had X or more roadway departure fatalities over the past 5 years. The intent of this objective is to advance a set of 3-E initiatives on three of these corridors to reduce the potential for future severe roadway departure crashes. For each of the corridors, this initiative will have as its objective a reduction in corridor roadway departure fatalities and severe injuries by a minimum of 25 percent using a combination of low-cost infrastructure improvements coupled with targeted education and enforcement initiatives. While the selection of the corridor has been based upon high frequencies of severe roadway departure crashes, the approach may be broader and encompass other corridor concerns such as intersections, mid-block pedestrian problems, and driver behavioral problems, including driving while intoxicated, lack of safety belts, and speeding.

The effort begins with a thorough analysis of the crash characteristics in the corridor to better understand the problems that need to be addressed and relate the patterns to potential countermeasures. A multi-disciplinary team is then formed to review the crash analysis, discuss the safety problems on the corridor, jointly field review the corridor to gain personal and group consensus of the major safety issues, and collectively develop an overall set of 3-E countermeasures to improve safety on the corridor. After the countermeasures have been identified and approved by the agencies involved, staged and coordinated implementation of the recommendations begins. The team performs oversight and monitors the implementation activities to insure that substantive safety progress along the corridor is being made.

A pilot effort of three corridors will be initiated first. The pilot will be evaluated by the Executive Committee for Highway Safety, and, if considered beneficial, will be expanded to the remaining corridors incorporating lessons learned from the pilot.

The goal of the corridor safety study is to reduce fatal and disabling injury crashes on designated high-volume arterials exhibiting high frequencies of severe crashes using low-cost, near-term solutions combined with highly visible enforcement, education, and emergency medical service initiatives.

Corridor safety studies are usually conducted using a team approach. The corridor team is normally comprised of at least the following representatives:

• District Traffic and Safety Engineer.
• District Press Officer.
• District Maintenance Manager or designee.
• Representative of State or local police responsible for enforcement on the corridor.
• Local government representative.

Additional team members may also include the Local Emergency Medical Services (EMS) coordinator, a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) representative, and a highway design representative.

Once a corridor has been identified for a study, the District Traffic or Safety Engineer should perform an analysis of the crash data along the corridor to identify crash patterns that can be addressed by low-cost countermeasures and education/enforcement actions. All cluster lists need to be reviewed to identify specific locations within the corridor that appear on one or more of the cluster lists.

After the crash analysis is completed, the corridor safety team is convened to review and discuss the crash analysis, findings, and safety concerns along the corridor from each member's perspective. The team then conducts a field review of the corridor, usually in one or two vehicles, to assess areas of concern defined from the crash analysis and team discussions. The team then reconvenes and reaches consensus on a set of countermeasures and initiatives that have strong potential to reduce future severe crashes.

The District Traffic and Safety Engineer and the District Press Officer take the results of the team field review meeting and prepare a cost estimate and an assessment of the probable safety impacts and cost effectiveness of implementing the recommended improvements. A brief report and tentative implementation schedule are prepared and used for programming cost-effective improvements.

C. Targeted Engineering, Education, and Enforcement for Cities

Combined education, enforcement, and engineering initiatives in municipalities which have the highest frequencies of roadway departure crashes.

The crash data has identified the four cities that have the largest number of roadway departure fatalities. Targeting 3-E for cities involves inviting one large and one mid-size to initiate an area-wide 3E approach. The objective of the effort is to reduce city roadway departure fatalities by a minimum of 10 percent using a combination of low-cost infrastructure improvements coupled with targeted education and enforcement strategies that extend beyond those that may be implemented in other systematic countermeasure deployments.

The effort begins with a preliminary meeting with city officials to determine interest in initiating a comprehensive roadway departure safety initiative. If interested, a thorough "clean up" of the crash data for roadway departure crashes on State and local roads within the urban area is completed such that clusters of crashes can be accurately combined. After the data is cleaned, a thorough analysis of the characteristics of crashes in the city is performed with the goal of understanding the problems that need to be addressed and relating the patterns to potential countermeasures. A city-wide, multi-disciplinary team is then formed to review the crash analysis, discuss the roadway departure safety problems in the city, jointly field review the selected problem areas to gain personal and group consensus of the major safety issues, and collectively develop an overall set of 3-E countermeasures to improve safety in the city. After the countermeasures have been identified and approved by the agencies involved, staged and coordinated implementation of the recommendations begins. The team performs oversight and monitors the implementation activities to insure that substantive safety progress is being made.

Deployment of Traditional Roadway Departure Countermeasures

Currently roadway departure improvements are generated within the HSIP program by identifying and studying crash locations that have high crash rankings. Two initiatives will be undertaken within the traditional roadway departure program as follows:

• In addition to candidate locations generated from the existing formulae, other potential roadway departure-specific improvement types under the traditional program are as follows:
  1. a. Median barriers or other improvements on full access control highways with remaining head-on and opposing-flow crashes (see Table 25).
  2. b. High friction surfaces on high-speed highways with wet pavement crashes or highway sections that require higher friction values.

A summary of the scope of these deployments and set of key steps needed to implement each of these initiatives effectively is included in Tables 26 through 28.

Roadway Departure Countermeasures on Local Roads

Only one roadway departure countermeasure will be pursued on local roads at this time: sign and marking enhancements on local road curves. Centerline and edge line rumble strips on local roads may be pursued at a later date depending on the success of the local curve signing program and the success of the centerline/edge line rumble strip program on State roads. Since local roads do not have a referencing system, candidate local roads for curve sign and marking enhancements was based upon the total number of curve crashes on each local road. Only those local roads that have three or more crashes per mile during the study period will be considered for further analysis.

The summary of local roads that meet these criteria is as follows:

Thus there are XXX local road candidates for curve sign and marking enhancements. It is assumed that either the District Traffic Engineer or a trained LTAP safety engineer will perform the analysis on each of these roads. The analysis will first attempt to locate the curve crashes to specific curves on the local road. Only those curves which have X or X or more curve crashes in five years will be considered for improvements. The improvements will be equivalent to the same type of sign and marking improvement on state highways.

Key Implementation Steps

The key steps necessary to implement this initiative and realize the safety benefits of the improvements, organizations responsible for each key step, and the schedule to fully implement this activity are shown in Table 30.

Incorporation of Low-Cost, Cost-Effective Countermeasures at Crash Locations within the Limits of Work for Programmed Projects

A considerable number of project types are implemented throughout the state. Within the contract limits of some these projects, high-crash sections exist where cost-effective, low-cost countermeasures may be considered for incorporation into the project to reduce the potential for future crashes. This initiative is to develop and implement a process to identify programmed projects that have crash histories within the geographic location of the project and determine if low-cost, cost-effective safety improvements should be incorporated into the project to reduce the potential of future crashes.

There are a number of issues that need to be addressed for this initiative to be successful, including:

1. Type of project on which to consider incorporating the low-cost safety countermeasures – Reconstruction projects will probably address most of the safety issues that low-cost countermeasures are designed to address. Specialty project types such as transportation enhancements may not be appropriate to consider for incorporating low-cost safety measures (except if the project has landscaping, tree, and shrubbery improvements). Bridge projects are usually limited to the bridge itself and may restrict the potential to incorporate these countermeasures into them. Resurfacing and 3-R projects offer the greatest opportunity for incorporation of low cost countermeasures since the primary improvement is normally limited to providing a smooth and structurally sound surface.
2. Type of low-cost countermeasures to consider for incorporation into projects – The predominant low-cost countermeasures that need to be considered for inclusion in programmed projects should meet the minimum crash thresholds defined for the systematic low-cost countermeasure initiative and include the following:
   1. Shoulder or edge line rumble strips in rural areas.
   2. Centerline rumble strips in rural areas.
   3. Tree removal in rural areas.
   4. Use of the safety edge under the following conditions: at the edge of pavement if a non-paved shoulder is specified, at the outer edge of a paved shoulder, and during construction if a lift exceeding 2 inches will be open to traffic for a period of time.
   5. Use of an micro-texture or similar high skid surface on sections which have X or more wet pavement crashes within a 3,000 foot section, a wet/total crash ratio above 22 percent, and a pavement cross section that is relatively flat, susceptible to accumulating water, and would not be corrected by the pavement overlay.
3. Funding – The method to finance safety improvements needs to be clarified within the state. The two basic options are to fund the safety as part of the existing project funding or fund the safety portion with HSIP funding.
4. Process – The process by which low-cost, cost-effective safety countermeasures are to be considered and included in other projects needs to be developed between the divisions involved. Some of the questions that need to be addressed include the following:
   1. When in the design development stage should the consideration be given?
   2. Who should identify projects that have crash histories above the threshold? Who will perform the analyses to determine the appropriate countermeasure?
   3. Who will make the decision to include or exclude?
   4. What can be done to easily and efficiently incorporate designated low cost improvements into the plan?

Key Implementation Steps

The key steps needed to effectively consider the initiative are shown in Table 31.

Deployment and Evaluation of New Roadway Departure Countermeasures

This initiative involves the limited and careful evaluation and potential deployment of new roadway departure countermeasures that offer the potential to reduce roadway departure crashes and fatalities beyond that which can be expected from existing countermeasures. One major roadway departure countermeasure has been identified that falls into this category: traffic calming to reduce high end speeds at selected rural sites.

THE STATE has minimal experience with the proposed new countermeasures. In addition, the actual effectiveness of rural traffic calming countermeasures has not been adequately validated. Nevertheless, rural traffic calming countermeasures fill gaps that the existing countermeasures cannot. STATE DOT will proceed cautiously with the deployment of these countermeasures to reduce risk of failure, concentrating initial deployment on those sections with high numbers of roadway departure crashes that the countermeasure is designated to impact. A brief evaluation/ implementation plan will be developed for the countermeasure that will include the limited deployment of an adequate number of improvements to identify implementation issues and any beneficial or adverse operational impacts. Any implementation issues or concerns identified from this initial deployment will be addressed and resolved before further implementation of the countermeasure is considered. Once all identified issues are resolved, sufficient additional improvements of the countermeasure will occur to improve the estimate of the effectiveness of the countermeasure in reducing targeted roadway departure crashes. When a better estimate of the effectiveness of the countermeasure is available, the countermeasure will be deployed cost effectively, depending upon the availability of funds and other priorities.

The extent to which traffic calming may be applied to the state's highways is provided in the following table, which identifies sections of roadway with high incidences of speed-related crashes.

Types of traffic calming may be found in FHWA Report HRT-08-067. In addition the use of peripheral transverse pavement markings on a continuous section rather than for a point specific location should be considered to reduce excessive speeds on throughout a section of roadway.

The key steps that need to be taken to consider these enhancements are as follows:

Performance Measures

Two types of performance measures are proposed:

1. Production performance measures that measure performance in implementing the products, processes, guidelines, and projects determined in the Plan that are needed to achieve the goal. These are described in Table 34.
2. Effectiveness performance measures the effectiveness of implemented countermeasures to reduce targeted crashes and compares actual to estimated effectiveness. These are show in Table 35, to be filled out by the State highway agency after implementation begins.

Production Performance Measures

Effectiveness Performance Measures – Program Effectiveness in Reducing Targeted Crashes

Table 35: Performance Measures

Countermeasure	Year Improvements Implemented	Year Evaluation Plan Developed	Year Evaluation Completed	Expected Crash Reduction	Actual Crash Reduction
Curve sign and marking enhancements – systematic
Centerline Rumble strips – systematic
Edge line / shoulder rumble strips (non-Interstate) – systematic
Tree removal – systematic
Resurfacing Projects with safety enhancements
2-E Targeted Education and Enforcement Corridors
3-E Targeted Engineering, Education, and Enforcement Corridors
3-E Targeted Engineering, Education, and Enforcement Cities
Median barrier
High-friction surface
New Traffic Calming Countermeasures

Summary

The number of roadway departure fatalities and incapacitating injuries within STATE can measurably decline over the next several years, but it will take a number of new and special actions, increased roadway departure safety emphasis, and additional funding to realize this benefit. The existing approach of emphasizing moderate- to high-cost improvements at high-crash roadway departure sections must be complemented with the deployment of a large number of low-cost, effective countermeasures and the use of a coordinated 3-E comprehensive approach on high-crash corridors and in municipalities that have a high number of roadway departure fatalities.

Recapping, the countermeasures, deployment levels, costs, and estimated lives saved needed to achieve the roadway departure safety goal are shown in Table 6. While the level and direction of effort is well beyond that currently being pursued for roadway departure safety, the expected outcome – preventing over XXXX crashes, nearly XXX incapacitating injury crashes, and more than XX fatalities annually on STATE'S highways – is worth the investment.

U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration

FHWA-HOP-11-032