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


Skip to content
FacebookYouTubeTwitterFlickrLinkedIn

Safety

eSubscribe
eSubscribe Envelope

FHWA Home / Safety / Intersection / Example Intersection Safety Implementation Plan

Example Intersection Safety Implementation Plan

< Previous Table of Contents Next >

Implementation

The successful implementation of the multiple strategies in the plan will require constant and broad management support. It is expected that as the effort is implemented, unforeseen problems will arise, new opportunities will develop, and changes in direction and emphasis will be needed to take advantage of changing conditions. As such, the following actions should be taken to ensure success.

The remainder of this section provides a detailed description of and key implementation steps for each countermeasure to be implemented. A tabulation of the countermeasures and type of approach is shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Intersection Safety Countermeasures by Approach Type
Number Countermeasure Approach
1 Sign and Marking Improvements – State Stop-Controlled Intersections
  • Basic Set of Sign and Marking Improvements
  • Flashing Solar Powered LED Beacons on Advance Intersection Warning Signs and Stop Signs or Flashing Overhead Intersection Beacons
  • Optional Signing and Marking Improvements Based on the Characteristics of the Intersection
Systematic
2 J-Turn Modifications on High-Speed Divided Arterials – State Stop-Controlled Intersections Systematic
3 Basic Set of Sign and Marking Improvements – Local Stop-Controlled Intersections Systematic
4 Signal and Sign Improvements – State Signalized Intersections
  • Basic Set of Signal and Sign Improvements
  • Optional Signal and Sign Improvements Based on the Characteristics of the Intersection
  • Change of Permitted and Protected Left-Turn Phase to Protected Only
  • Advance Detection Control Systems
Systematic
5 Signal and Sign Improvements – Local Signalized Intersections
  • Basic Set of Signal and Sign Improvements
  • Change of Permitted and Protected Left-Turn Phase to Protected Only
Systematic
6 New or Upgraded Lighting – State Rural Intersections Systematic
7 High-Friction Surface – State Intersections Systematic
8 Enforcement-Assisted Lights Systematic
9 Corridor 3E Improvements on High-Speed Arterials with Very High Frequencies of Severe Intersection Crashes Comprehensive
10 Municipal-Wide 3E Improvements in Municipalities with High Frequencies of Severe Intersection Crashes Comprehensive
11 Roundabouts Traditional


1. Sign and Marking Improvements – State Stop-Controlled Intersections

Description

Basic Set of Signing and Marking Improvements

This initiative involves the installation of a set of basic signing and marking improvements that are collectively low-cost, designed to lower the potential of future crashes significantly, and are to be applied predominantly on single through lane, high-crash, stop-controlled State intersections in both rural and urban areas. They may also be applied on dual through lane, high-crash, stop-controlled intersections with lower traffic volumes (less than about 25,000 average annual daily traffic (AADT)) where the use of J-treatments is not appropriate and the frequency of acceptable gaps for entering traffic is such that long waiting and higher risk taking are not present at the intersection.

Diagram of a T-intersection showing the placement of oversized warning signs with street identification placards on the approach to the intersection, doubled stop ahead warning signs as well as doubled up oversized stop signs on the stop approach, a traffic island separating traffic moving in opposite directions on the leg of the T, a double warning arrow at the juncture of the T, and stop bars marked on the pavement.

Figure 1. Examples of Basic Low-Cost Countermeasures for Stop-Controlled Intersections – Double Up Oversize Warning Signs, Double STOP Signs, Traffic Island on Stop Approach (if feasible), Street Name Signs, Stop Bars, and Double Warning Arrow at the Stem of T-Intersections

Basic enhancements considered for improvement are illustrated in Figure 1 and include the following:

The high-crash intersections where the basic set of signing and marking improvements are to be considered for installation are summarized in Table 7. The State Safety Engineer has a complete listing of all intersections with numbers of crashes that meet or exceed the threshold levels in this and all remaining tables. In addition to this listing, detailed crash information for each crash that occurred at these intersections is also available.

Note to the Reader: The threshold crash levels in the following tables are selected based on the estimated maximum number of intersections that can be improved by the countermeasure within the timeframe of the implementation plan. For example, in Table 7 the threshold of 6 crashes in 6 years (i.e., an average of 1 crash per year) for basic sign and marking improvements at State rural stop-controlled intersections was selected based on a maximum of 1,000 statewide intersections that can be improved within the 5-year implementation plan period. In Table 12, the crash threshold of 6 crashes in 6 years (i.e., average of 1 crash per year) for basic sign and marking improvements at local rural stop-controlled intersections was selected for equivalency with the threshold established for State rural stop-controlled intersections in Table 7.


Table 7: Basic Set of Sign and Marking Improvements – State Stop-Controlled Intersections
Countermeasure Threshold Crash Level (6 Years) Number of Statewide Crash Intersections Number of Targeted 6 Year Crashes in the Intersections Estimated Number of Improvements1 Construction Costs
($ Million)2
Fatalities per 100 Crashes Incapacitating Injuries per 100 Crashes Annual Targeted Crash Reduction3 Annual Incapacitating Injury Reduction Annual Estimated Fatality Reduction
Basic Set of Sign and Marking Improvements – Rural 6 1,221 13,722 977 7.82 1.6 12.47 732 91.2 11.71
Basic Set of Sign and Marking Improvements – Urban 50 165 12,180 131 1.05 0.21 3.31 650 21.5 1.36
Total empty cell empty cell empty cell 1,108 8.87 empty cell empty cell 1,382 117.7 13.07
1 Assumes 80% of locations can be improved.
2 Assumes an average cost of $8,000 per intersection.
3 A CRF of 0.40 is used.


Flashing Solar Powered LED Beacons on Advance Intersection Warning Signs and STOP Signs or Flashing Overhead Intersection Beacons

In addition to the basic sign and marking enhancements at State stop-controlled intersections, this initiative also involves the installation of supplemental warning notification for the traveling public at State stop-controlled intersections with a number of crashes that is well beyond the crash threshold for sign and marking enhancements. The enhanced warning notifications may be either solar-powered LED flashing beacons placed on the oversized advance warning signs for the through approach, or they could be a combination of both presence detectors on the stop approach that recognize a stopped vehicle and activated LED flashing beacons on advance warning signs on the through approach. Flashing beacons may also be placed on the STOP signs if running STOP signs is a significant problem and transverse rumble strips are not appropriate due to noise issues.

The high-crash intersections where flashing beacons are to be considered for installation are summarized in Table 8.

Table 8: Flashing Beacons – State Stop-Controlled Intersections
Countermeasure Threshold Crash Level (6 Years) Number of Statewide Crash Intersections Number of Targeted 6 Year Crashes in the Intersections Estimated Number of Improvements1 Construction Costs
($ Million)2
Fatalities per 100 Crashes Incapacitating Injuries per 100 Crashes Annual Targeted Crash Reduction3 Annual Incapacitating Injury Reduction Annual Estimated Fatality Reduction
Flashing Solar Powered LED Beacons on Advance Intersection Warning Signs and STOP Signs or Flashing Overhead Intersection Beacons – Rural 24 66 2,261 52 0.52 1.6 12.47 24 3 0.38
Flashing Solar Powered LED Beacons on Advance Intersection Warning Signs and STOP Signs or Flashing Overhead Intersection Beacons – Urban 100 21 2,842 17 0.17 0.21 3.31 30 1 0.06
Total empty cell empty cell empty cell 69 0.69 empty cell empty cell 54 4 0.44
1 Assumes 80% of locations can be improved.
2 Assumes an average cost of $10,000 per intersection.
3 A CRF of 0.08 is used – 0.13x(1-0.40)=0.08.


Optional Signing and Marking Improvements Based on the Characteristics of the Intersection

The optional additional improvements listed below may be beneficial if specific intersection safety concerns are present. These improvements should be considered for each stop-controlled intersection with a number of crashes that meets or exceeds the threshold. The determination to include one or more of these improvements cannot be determined from the crash data; it must be made after a field review of the intersection to identify physical, traffic, or pedestrian characteristics that merit inclusion.

Key Implementation Steps

The key steps necessary to fully implement this initiative and realize the safety benefits of the improvements, the organizations responsible for each key step, and the schedule to implement this activity fully are shown in Table 9.

Table 9. Key Implementation Steps for Sign and Marking Improvements – State Stop-Controlled Intersections
Step Organization Responsible for Step Completion Date (Months After Implementation Plan Acceptance)
1. Develop guidelines for District review of stop-controlled intersections with crashes above the crash threshold including: upgraded signs and markings (using information from the workshop as a base); sight distance minor improvements (foliage obstructions and parking in urban areas); use of a splitter island on the stop approaches at high-crash rural and urban stop-controlled intersections; and flashing beacons for intersections with crashes well above the crash threshold. Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety
1 month
2. Establish teams (District Office Traffic Engineering Operations and/or Safety Engineer and/or consultant) to field review intersections, determine appropriate improvements, determine means to implement (department forces, new District-wide contract) and prepare contract plans (if needed). Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety
3 months
3. Train team on guidelines, field review requirements, and contract plan preparation. Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety
6 months
4. Commence and complete field views of top-listed intersections (one-third of intersections identified), identify intersections where improvements are appropriate, identify improvements, identify which Districts will implement using Department forces, prepare statewide or area contract plans for remaining work. District Office Traffic Engineering Operations and/or Safety Engineer

District Office Consultants
12 months
5. Let contracts (if applicable) and implement improvements. District Offices 24 months
6. Using lessons learned, identify next set (middle third of top intersections), and repeat steps 4 and 5. Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety
30 months (middle third step 4)42 months (middle third step 5)
7. Using lessons learned, re-run crash data to identify last set (lower third of intersections identified plus any new intersections that exceed the threshold), and repeat steps 4 and 5. Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety
48 months (lower third step 4)60 months (lower third step 5)


2. J-Turn Modifications on High-Speed Divided Arterials – State Stop-Controlled Intersections

Description

This initiative involves the installation of minor channelization on the stop approaches to multi-lane, divided, high-speed highways to make them right-turn only. This treatment is considered at those intersections which have 10 or more crashes involving a stopped vehicle in a 6-year period. Left-turn and through movements from the stop approach are eliminated by minor channelization and signing. This option is feasible where vehicles can reach their intended destination by turning right at the intersection and within a reasonable distance downstream, enter an exclusive left-turn lane, and make a U-turn. Figure 2 provides an illustration.

Diagram identifies potential J-turn conflicts on a divided two-lane highway: 12 conflicts occur at the main intersection (4 at points where turning traffic crosses oncoming traffic at 90 degrees); 8 conflicts occur in weaving areas, and 4 occur at the point of turning traffic making a U-turn. Ten conflicts occur at merge points, and 10 occur where traffic diverges.
Figure 2. Turn Restrictions at Multi-Lane Highways

The J-turn treatment is considered the most effective low-cost countermeasure treatment available for reducing future crash potential at divided highway intersections. However, if left-turn lanes for the turnarounds are not available within a reasonable distance and the costs to install new lanes is prohibitive, or if significant controversy is involved with limiting movements at the intersection, less effective countermeasures can be considered as follows:

The high-crash intersections where J-treatments should be considered are summarized in Table 10.

Table 10. J-Turn Modifications on High-Speed Divided Arterials – State, Rural, Stop-Controlled Intersections
Countermeasure Threshold Crash Level (6 Years) Number of Statewide Crash Intersections Number of Targeted 6 Year Crashes in the Intersections Estimated Number of Improvements1 Construction Costs
($ Million)2
Fatalities per 100 Crashes Incapacitating Injuries per 100 Crashes Annual Targeted Crash Reduction3 Annual Incapacitating Injury Reduction Annual Estimated Fatality Reduction
J-Turns Modifications on High-Speed Divided Arterials 10 70 1,160 56 16.80 3.74 22.72 77 17.5 2.87
1 Assumes 80% of locations can be improved.
2 Assumes an average cost of $300,000 per intersection.
3 A CRF of 0.50.


J-turn treatments also should be considered for any divided, urban, stop-controlled intersection that has a legal speed limit of 45 mph or greater and meets the rural crash thresholds indicated in Table 10.

The severity of crashes at rural stop-controlled intersections is extremely high (i.e., 3.74 fatalities per 100 crashes). As such, the three additional options listed above should be considered at all divided rural intersections and divided urban intersections with speed limits of 45mph or greater with 5 or more crashes in a 6-year period when it is not feasible to install J-turn treatments.

Key Implementation Steps

The key steps necessary to fully implement this initiative and realize the safety benefits of the improvements, the organizations responsible for each key step, and the schedule for this activity are shown in Table 11.

Table 11. Key Implementation Steps for J-Turn Modifications on High-Speed Divided Arterials – State Stop-Controlled Intersections
Step Organization Responsible for Step Completion Date (Months After Implementation Plan Acceptance)
1. Develop guidelines for considering J-turn treatments and other options if J-treatments are not appropriate. Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety
1 month
2. Establish teams (District Office Traffic Engineering Operations and/or Safety Engineer) to field review divided highway stop-controlled intersections, determine if improvements can be made, determine the type of improvements, and prepare contract plans. Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety
3 months
3. Develop a training package and train team on guidelines, field review requirements, and contract plan preparation. Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety
6 months
4. Commence and complete field reviews of intersections that meet the threshold crash levels, identify intersections where improvements are appropriate, the type of improvement, identify which Districts will implement improvements using Department forces. District Office Traffic Engineering Operations and/or Safety Engineer 12 months
5. For those intersections in which a J-turn treatment is proposed, secure public input per DOT's processes and after determine appropriateness of implementing a J-turn treatment. District Office Traffic Engineering Operations and/or Safety Engineer 18 months
6. Develop plans, let contract and implement J-turn treatments. District Office Traffic Engineering Operations and/or Safety Engineer 42 months
7. For those divided intersections with optional improvements, identify improvements, identify which Districts will implement using Department forces, prepare statewide or area contract plans for these improvements. District Office Traffic Engineering Operations and/or Safety Engineer 42 months


3. Basic Set of Sign and Marking Improvements – Local Stop-Controlled Intersections

Description

This initiative involves the installation of a set of signing and marking improvements that are low-cost, designed to lower the potential of future crashes significantly, and are to be applied predominantly on single through lane, high-crash, stop-controlled local intersections in both rural and urban areas. They utilize the same basic set of sign and marking improvement countermeasure treatments and the same crash threshold levels as those described for State stop-controlled intersections in Countermeasure #1.

Since the level of effort to obtain Federal funds for multiple low-cost improvements on local roads and transfer them to local governments may exceed the costs of the low-cost improvements, the State initiative will include the following:

The high-crash intersections where the basic set of sign and marking should be considered are summarized in Table 12.

Table 12. Basic Set of Sign and Marking Improvements – Local Stop-Controlled Intersections
Countermeasure Threshold Crash Level (6 Years) Number of Statewide Crash Intersections Number of Targeted 6 Year Crashes in the Intersections Estimated Number of Improvements1 Construction Costs
($ Million)2
Fatalities per 100 Crashes Incapacitating Injuries per 100 Crashes Annual Targeted Crash Reduction3 Annual Incapacitating Injury Reduction Annual Estimated Fatality Reduction
Basic Set of Sign and Marking Improvements – Rural 6 190 1,968 152 1.22 0.21 5.23 105 5.5 0.22
Basic Set of Sign and Marking Improvements – Urban 50 105 7,683 84 0.67 0.12 2.35 410 9.6 0.49
Total empty cell empty cell empty cell 236 1.89 empty cell empty cell 555 15.1 0.71
1 Assumes 80% of locations can be improved.
2 Assumes an average cost of $8,000 per intersection.
3 A CRF of 0.40.


Key Implementation Steps

The key steps necessary to fully implement this initiative and realize the safety benefits of the improvements, the organizations responsible for each key step, and the schedule for this activity are shown in Table 13.

Table 13. Key Implementation Steps for Basic Set of Sign and Marking Improvements – Local Stop-Controlled Intersections
Step Organization Responsible for Step Completion Date (Months After Implementation Plan Acceptance)
1. Develop guidelines for local government review of stop-controlled intersections with crashes above the crash threshold, including: upgraded signs and markings (using information from the workshop as a base); sight distance minor improvements (foliage obstructions and parking in urban areas); and use of a splitter island on the stop approaches at high-crash rural and urban stop-controlled intersections. Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety
1 month
2. Perform an assessment of benefits, disadvantages, complexities, and issues associated with producing signs using 100 percent Federal safety funds to provide to locals for installation at high-crash stop-controlled local intersections. Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety
1 month (assessment completed)2 months (decision to provide signs)3 months (additional requirements, if any, added to guidelines).
3. Estimate the number of local governments that will need training based upon the high-crash intersection data. Determine the type of training needed for implementing the improvements. Assess the availability, capability, and capacity of LTAP, FHWA Resource Center, or other sources to provide the training. Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety
4 months
4. Provide crash data; guidelines for sign and marking improvements; information on availability of signs for designated intersections to municipalities (if appropriate); and training schedule and location for local governments. Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety
6 months
5. Train local team on guidelines; field review requirements; improvement determination; and sign, marking, and splitter island installation. Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety
9 months
6. Establish a monitoring and tracking system to insure that improvements at local intersections are properly identified and implemented. District Office Traffic Engineering and/or Safety Engineer 12 months


4. Signal and Sign Improvements – State Signalized Intersections

Description

Basic Set of Signal and Sign Improvements

This initiative involves the installation of a basic set of signal, sign, and marking improvements that are low-cost, are designed to lower the potential for future crashes significantly, and are to be applied at high-crash, signalized, State intersections in both rural and urban areas.

The typical improvements considered for implementation include:

The majority of traffic signals on the State highway system already have the first three of the suggested enhancements described above installed. Consequently improvements, costs, and safety impacts for implementing the basic set of signal and sign enhancements are minimal. The two improvements expected to have the highest level of impact are signal clearance timing in accordance with the ITE clearance formula and eliminating late-night flashing operations.

The high-crash intersections where the basic set of signal and sign should be considered are summarized in Table 14.

Table 14. Basic Set of Signal and Sign Improvements – State Signalized Intersections
Countermeasure Threshold Crash Level (6 Years) Number of Statewide Crash Intersections Number of Targeted 6 Year Crashes in the Intersections Estimated Number of Improvements1 Construction Costs
($ Million)2
Fatalities per 100 Crashes Incapacitating Injuries per 100 Crashes Annual Targeted Crash Reduction3 Annual Incapacitating Injury Reduction Annual Estimated Fatality Reduction
Basic Set of Signal and Sign Improvements – Rural 10 123 3,012 98 0.49 0.41 5.53 75 4.1 0.31
Basic Set of Signal and Sign Improvements – Urban 50 371 28,570 297 1.48 0.17 3.36 714 24.0 1.21
Total empty cell empty cell empty cell 395 1.97 empty cell empty cell 789 28.1 1.52
1 Assumes 80% of locations can be improved.
2 Assumes an average cost of $5,000 per intersection.
3 A CRF of 0.15.


Optional Signal and Sign Improvements Based on the Characteristics of the Intersection

The optional additional improvements listed below may be beneficial if specific intersection safety concerns are present. These improvements should be considered for each signalized intersection with a number of crashes that meets or exceeds the threshold. The determination to include one or more of these improvements cannot be determined from the crash data; it must be made after a field review of the intersection to identify physical, traffic, or pedestrian characteristics that merit inclusion.

Change of Permitted and Protected Left-Turn Phase to Protected Only

One major crash pattern that needs to be addressed individually is signalized intersections with a significant number or potential for left-turn, opposing-flow crashes. At these traffic signals the potential change is to modify the signal phase from permitted and protected left-turn phases to protected-only. This can be considered for intersections with high numbers of left-turn, opposing flow crashes, three or more opposing approach lanes, or high opposing volumes with few acceptable turning gaps.

The high-crash intersections where the protected only left-turn phase should be considered are summarized in Table 15.

Table 15. Change of Permitted and Protected Left-Turn Phase to Protected Only – State Signalized Intersections
Countermeasure Threshold Crash Level (6 Years) Number of Statewide Crash Intersections Number of Targeted 6 Year Crashes in the Intersections Estimated Number of Improvements1 Construction Costs
($ Million)2
Fatalities per 100 Crashes Incapacitating Injuries per 100 Crashes Annual Targeted Crash Reduction3 Annual Incapacitating Injury Reduction Annual Estimated Fatality Reduction
Change of Permitted and Protected Left-Turn Phase to Protected Only – Rural 5 87 841 61 0.3 0.39 6.08 47 2.9 0.18
Change of Permitted and Protected Left-Turn Phase to Protected Only Urban 10 678 13,781 475 2.37 0.17 5.32 772 41.1 1.31
Total empty cell empty cell empty cell 536 2.67 empty cell empty cell 819 44.0 1.49
1 Assumes 70% of locations can be improved.
2 Assumes an average cost of $5,000 per intersection.
3 A CRF of 0.48.


Advance Detection Control Systems – Isolated High-Speed State, Rural, Signalized Intersections

Isolated high-speed State, rural, signalized intersections with a significant number of angle crashes is another major crash pattern that needs to be addressed individually. At these traffic signals, the proposed improvement is to install an advance detection control system capable of identifying vehicles on the mainline that will violate the yellow and red change intervals and hold the onset of green on the side approaches until the violating vehicle clears the intersection.

These systems utilize sets of advanced detectors to predict when a vehicle will be in the dilemma zone at isolated high-speed rural, signalized intersections. As the green phase begins to end, the detection control sensors identify vehicles by their position, speed, and acceleration characteristics. Taking the signal timing into account, the sensors perform automated calculations to determine if the vehicle will be in the dilemma zone as the signal would normally change to red. When such vehicles are identified, logic can be incorporated into the signal controller to hold the red phase on the side street until the vehicles on the ending green phase clear the intersection, thereby avoiding a conflict with crossing traffic.

The advance detection control system has been demonstrated at eight intersections in Texas and also is also being deployed in other parts of the nation. The evaluations from the Texas demonstrations have shown significant reductions in red-light violation and crash frequencies.

Potential candidate intersections for this improvement are State, rural, signalized intersections with five or more angle crashes. The number of intersections that potentially can be considered for the advance detection control system in this plan is 67, as shown in Table 16. Since advance detection control systems are new to the State, the State DOT will pilot the system with limited deployments between now and 2011 to gain more experience with the system. The State DOT will install the advance detection control system at 10 isolated high-speed State, rural, signalized intersections.

Table 16. Advance Detection Control Systems – Isolated High-Speed State, Rural, Signalized Intersections
Countermeasure Threshold Crash Level (6 Years)1 Number of Statewide Crash Intersections Number of Targeted 6 Year Crashes in the Intersections Estimated Number of Improvements2 Construction Costs
($ Million)3
Fatalities per 100 Crashes Incapacitating Injuries per 100 Crashes Annual Targeted Crash Reduction4 Annual Incapacitating Injury Reduction Annual Estimated Fatality Reduction
Advance Detection Control Systems 5 110 1,112 67 1/00 0.69 9.32 45 4.2 0.31
1 Angle crashes.
2 Assumes 60% of locations can be improved.
3 Assumes an average cost of $15,000 per intersection.
4 A CRF of 0.40.


Key Implementation Steps

The key steps necessary to fully implement this initiative and realize the safety benefits of the improvements, the organizations responsible for each key step, and the schedule for these activities are shown in Tables 17 and 18.
Table 17. Key Implementation Steps for Signal and Sign Improvements – State Signalized Intersections
Step Organization Responsible for Step Completion Date (Months After Implementation Plan Acceptance)
1. Develop guidelines for upgraded signal, signs, markings (using information from the workshop as a base), optional improvements; left turn safety enhancements; and advance detection control systems at isolated high-speed State, rural, signalized intersections. Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety
1 month
2. Obtain additional knowledge on advance detection control systems by visiting other States that have successfully implemented these systems. Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety
5 months
3. Establish teams (District Office Traffic Engineering Operations and/or Safety Engineer and/or consultant) to field review intersections, determine improvements and prepare contract plans. Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety
3 months
4. Develop a training package and train team on guidelines, field review requirements, and contract plan preparation. Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety
6 months
5. Commence and complete field views of the listed signalized intersections, identify improvements, identify which Districts will implement using Department forces, prepare statewide or area contract plans for remaining work. District Office Traffic Engineering and/or Safety Engineer and/or District Office Consultants 18 months
6. Let contract and implement improvements (including at least 10 advance detection control systems). District Offices

Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations
30 months
7. Take any lessons learned, and complete design and let contract for advance detection control systems at remaining isolated high-speed State, rural, signalized intersections. Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety
54 months


Table 18. Key Implementation Steps for Advance Detection Control Systems Pilot – Isolated High-Speed State, Rural, Signalized Intersections
Step Organization Responsible for Step Completion Date (Months After Implementation Plan Acceptance)
1. Gain information and knowledge regarding the design and construction characteristics and requirements of advance detection control systems. Develop typical provisions for detection control systems for use in the State. Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations 5 months (knowledge gained)8 months (typical provisions developed)
2. Solicit interest from Districts that have rural signalized intersections with 10 or more angle crashes to consider incorporating an advance detection control system at approximately 10 intersections statewide. Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety
10 months (solicitation initiated) 12 months (solicitation finalized)
3. For those Districts interested, provide technical assistance and contacts to evaluate the appropriateness of using advance detection control systems at identified intersections within their District and provide information on developing plans and specifications for such a system. Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations 15 months
4. Prepare and let contract plans for advance detection control systems at approved candidate intersections. District Offices

Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations
21 months
5. Complete installation. Evaluate, identify, and resolve any issues or problems. Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety

District Offices
30 months (projects completed)36 months (projects evaluated)
6. Based upon the evaluation, make a decision whether to expand to remaining intersections and at what level, or terminate. Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety

District Offices
38 months
7. If decision is to expand, provide guidance to Districts on selecting appropriate intersections and finalize set of additional intersections to install advance detection control systems. Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety
30 months (guidance issued)42 months (candidate intersections approved)
8. Repeat steps 4 and 5 for remaining intersections. Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety

District Offices
60 months


5. Signal and Sign Improvements – Local Signalized Intersections

Description

Basic Set of Signal and Sign Improvements

This initiative involves the installation of a basic set of signal, sign, and marking improvements that are low-cost, are designed to lower the potential for future crashes significantly, and are to be applied predominantly on single through lane, high-crash local signalized intersections in both rural and urban areas. They utilize the same countermeasure treatments and crash threshold levels as those for State signalized intersections. In addition, low-cost pedestrian intersection treatments are to be considered, including:

Since the level of effort to obtain Federal funds for multiple low-cost improvements on local roads and transfer them to local governments may exceed the costs of the low-cost improvements, the State initiative will include the following:

The high-crash intersections where the basic set of signal and sign improvements should be considered are summarized in Table 19.

Table 19. Basic Set of Signal and Sign Improvements – Local Signalized Intersections
Countermeasure Threshold Crash Level (6 Years) Number of Statewide Crash Intersections Number of Targeted 6 Year Crashes in the Intersections Estimated Number of Improvements1 Construction Costs
($ Million)2
Fatalities per 100 Crashes Incapacitating Injuries per 100 Crashes Annual Targeted Crash Reduction3 Annual Incapacitating Injury Reduction Annual Estimated Fatality Reduction
Basic Set of Signal and Sign Improvements – Rural 10 12 291 10 0.1 0.74 1.63 8 0.1 0.06
Basic Set of Signal and Sign Improvements – Urban 50 316 24,839 253 2.53 0.22 2.93 662 19.4 1.45
Total empty cell empty cell empty cell 263 2.63 empty cell empty cell 670 19.5 1.51
1 Assumes 80% of locations can be improved.
2 Assumes an average cost of $10,000 per intersection.
3 A CRF of 0.20.


Change of Permitted and Protected Left-Turn Phase to Protected Only

One major crash pattern that needs to be addressed individually is signalized intersections with a significant number or potential for left-turn, opposing-flow crashes. At these traffic signals the potential change is to modify the signal phase from permitted and protected left-turn phases to protected-only. This can be considered for intersections with high numbers of left-turn, opposing flow crashes, three or more opposing approach lanes, or high opposing volumes with few acceptable turning gaps.

The high-crash intersections where the protected only left-turn phase should be considered are summarized in Table 20.

Table 20. Change of Permitted and Protected Left-Turn Phase to Protected Only – Local Signalized Intersections
Countermeasure Threshold Crash Level (6 Years) Number of Statewide Crash Intersections Number of Targeted 6 Year Crashes in the Intersections Estimated Number of Improvements1 Construction Costs
($ Million)2
Fatalities per 100 Crashes Incapacitating Injuries per 100 Crashes Annual Targeted Crash Reduction3 Annual Incapacitating Injury Reduction Annual Estimated Fatality Reduction
Change of Permitted and Protected Left-Turn Phase to Protected Only – Rural 5 8 84 6 0.03 0.51 1.02 5 0 0.03
Change of Permitted and Protected Left-Turn Phase to Protected Only Urban 10 544 11,036 381 1.91 0.2 3.83 618 23.7 1.24
Total empty cell empty cell empty cell 387 1.94 empty cell empty cell 623 23.7 1.27
1 Assumes 80% of locations can be improved.
2 Assumes an average cost of $10,000 per intersection.
3 A CRF of 0.20.


Key Implementation Steps

The key steps necessary to fully implement this initiative and realize the safety benefits of the improvements, the organizations responsible for each key step, and the schedule for this activity are shown in Table 21.

Table 21. Key Implementation Steps for Signal and Sign Improvements – Local Signalized Intersections
Step Organization Responsible for Step Completion Date (Months After Implementation Plan Acceptance)
1. Develop guidelines for local government review of signalized intersections with crashes above the crash threshold which includes upgraded signal, signs, markings (using information from the workshop as a base), optional improvements; and left turn safety enhancements. Advanced detection control systems are not considered for local intersections until they have been adequately tested on the State system.

Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety

1 month
2. Perform an assessment of benefits, disadvantages, complexities, and issues associated with providing signs, back plates, and 12-inch LED lens using 100 percent Federal safety funds to locals for installation at high-crash local signalized intersections.

Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety

1 month (assessment completed)

2 months (decision to provide materials)

3 months (additional requirements, if any, added to guidelines)

3. Estimate the number of local governments that will need training based upon the high-crash intersection data. Determine the type of training needed for implementing the improvements. Assess the availability, capability, and capacity of LTAP, FHWA Resource Center, or other sources to provide the training.

Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety

4 months
4. Provide crash data; guidelines for signal, sign, and marking improvements; information on availability of signs for designated intersections to municipalities (if appropriate); and training schedule and location for local governments.

Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety

6 months
5. Train local team on guidelines; field review requirements; improvement determination; and signal, sign, and marking installation.

Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety

9 months
6. Establish a monitoring and tracking system to insure that improvements at local intersections are properly identified and implemented. District Office Traffic Engineering and/or Safety Engineer 12 months


6. New or Upgraded Lighting – State Rural Intersections

Description

Crashes that occur during darkness are typically more severe than daylight crashes. Major problems associated with unlit or poorly lit intersections (e.g. only one light per intersection) include reduced ability to recognize that an intersection is approaching, reduced ability to navigate turning movements properly, and degradation of the ability to recognize other vehicles and pedestrians in or entering the intersection.

The low-cost countermeasure for unlit or poorly lit intersections with a high frequency and rate of night crashes is lighting. Typical example layouts for intersection lighting are shown in Figure 3. States should follow their design policy for intersection lighting installations.

Two diagrams depicting light posts positioned on the approach to an intersection. The first example is of a single lane approach and contains one pole-mounted light suspended above each approach slightly in advance of the stop bar. The second image is of two-lane approaches to the intersection and contains one pole-mounted light to the right of the right travel lane that lights the area of the stop bar and one pole-mounted light set into a median to the left of the left travel lane.
Figure 3. New Design for Intersection Lighting Layout (Single and Multi-Lane Approaches)4

The crash reduction factor at unlit intersections with high frequencies and rates of night crashes is 50 percent of night crashes. The crash reduction factor for improving lighting at poorly lit intersections (one existing light per intersection) is estimated by an expert safety panel as 25 percent of night crashes.

The high-crash intersections where new or upgraded should be considered are summarized in Table 22.

Table 22. New or Upgraded Lighting – State Rural Intersections
Countermeasure Threshold Crash Level (6 Years)1 Number of Statewide Crash Intersections2 Number of Targeted 6 Year Crashes in the Intersections Estimated Number of Improvements3

Construction Costs
($ Million)4

Fatalities per 100 Crashes Incapacitating Injuries per 100 Crashes Annual Targeted Crash Reduction5 Annual Incapacitating Injury Reduction Annual Estimated Fatality Reduction
New or Upgraded Lighting 7 80 est. 740 est. 64 3.84 2.2 16.8 49 8.4 1.08
1 Dark crashes.
2 Dark crashes only and where the intersection dark/total ratio exceeds the statewide dark/total crash ratio of 0.20.
3 Assumes 80% of locations can be improved, rural intersections are predominantly unlit, and remaining rural intersections are poorly lit.
4 Assumes an average cost of $60,000 per intersection.
5 A CRF of 0.50 night crashes is used for rural unlit intersections; 0.25 of night crashes for poorly lit rural intersections.


Key Implementation Steps

The key steps necessary to fully implement this initiative and realize the safety benefits of the improvements, the organizations responsible for each key step, and the schedule for this activity are shown in Table 23.

Table 23. Key Implementation Steps for New or Upgraded Lighting – State Rural Intersections
Step Organization Responsible for Step Completion Date (Months After Implementation Plan Acceptance)
1. Clarify policy regarding installation, maintenance, and energizing lighting improvement responsibilities (State or local) at high night crash, State rural intersections.

Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety

State DOT Upper Management (Makes Policy Determination)

1 month
2. Assuming policy allows limited expansion of lighting to high night crash, State rural, unlit intersections, develop guidelines and standard for lighting typical rural intersections with two- and four-lane approaches. Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations 2 months
3. Establish teams (District Office Traffic Engineering and/or Safety Engineer and/or consultant) to field review intersections, determine lighting improvements, and prepare contract plans.

Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety

District Offices

3 months
4. Train team on lighting standards for intersections, field review requirements, and contract plan preparation.

Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety

6 months
5. Commence and complete field views of all listed State intersections, identify improvements, identify which districts will implement using Department forces, and prepare statewide or area contract plans for remaining work. District Office Traffic Engineering and/or Safety Engineer and/or District Office Consultant 12 months
6. Execute necessary agreements with local municipalities for lighting responsibilities.

District Office Traffic Engineering and/or Safety Engineer

Local Roads Coordinator

18 months
7. Let contract and implement improvements. District Offices 42 months


7. High-Friction Surface – State Intersections

Description

Crashes that occur when the pavement is wet on approaches with speed limits of 45 mph or more may be attributed to increased stopping distances due to low skid numbers and/or severe rutting in the wheel paths that might induce hydroplaning.

The low-cost countermeasure for intersections with higher frequencies of wet pavement crashes and above average wet/total crash rates include increasing the friction characteristics on intersection approaches with low skid numbers and eliminating any severe wheel path rutting.

One way transportation officials can increase pavement friction beyond what is attainable through traditional techniques is by using new high-friction surfacing systems. These systems use a combination of resins and polymers (usually urethane, silicon, or epoxy) and a binder topped with a natural or synthetic hard aggregate.

Micro texture, macro texture, and the durability of that texture distinguish these overlays from standard asphalt and concrete pavement surfaces. High-friction surfacing systems typically use much smaller and harder aggregates, such as calcined bauxite, slag, or other synthetic aggregates. These aggregates are generally less than 6.0 mm (0.23 inch) in diameter and have high skid resistance. The small and hard aggregate makes the overlay much more resistant to wear and polishing. The resin or polymer binder combination locks the aggregate firmly in place, creating an extremely rough, hard, durable surface capable of withstanding everyday roadway demands such as heavy braking and snowplowing. The rougher texture and greater surface area increase the pavement's friction.

The length of approach to apply skid resistance surfaces is variable dependent on approach speeds, sight distance, and expected queue lengths at signalized intersections. A minimum 300 feet of approach is recommended for through high-speed approaches to stop-controlled intersections. In addition, significant wheel rutting (2 inches in depth or greater) should be eliminated before applying any skid resistant surface.

Crash reduction factors for skid-resistant surfaces on high-speed (i.e., 45 mph or greater) intersection approaches with a high frequency and rate of wet pavement crashes and either (1) a ribbed tire skid number of 30 or less, (2) wheel path rutting of at least 2 inches in depth, or (3) both is 50 percent of wet pavement crashes.5

The high-crash intersections where high-friction surface should be considered are summarized in Table 24.

Table 24. High-Friction Surface – State Intersections, 45 mph or Greater Speed Limit
Countermeasure Threshold Crash Level (6 Years)1 Number of Statewide Crash Intersections2 Number of Targeted 6 Year Crashes in the Intersections Estimated Number of Improvements3

Construction Costs
($ Million)4

Fatalities per 100 Crashes Incapacitating Injuries per 100 Crashes Annual Targeted Crash Reduction5 Annual Incapacitating Injury Reduction Annual Estimated Fatality Reduction
High-Friction Surface 15 75 est. 1,475 est. 53 2.65 1.48 13.2 86 11.3 1.27
1 Wet crashes at intersections with speed limits of 45 mph or greater.
2 Assumes 70% of intersections have a skid number of 30 or less and can be overlaid.
3 Assumes these intersections have at least 15 wet pavement crashes and a wet/total ratio of at least 0.18.
4 Assumes an average cost of $50,000 per intersection to remove any significant rutting and apply a thin epoxy anti-skid surface.
5 A CRF of 0.50 night crashes is used for rural unlit intersections; 0.25 of night crashes for poorly lit rural intersections.


Key Implementation Steps

The key steps necessary to fully implement this initiative and realize the safety benefits of the improvements, the organizations responsible for each key step, and the schedule for this activity are shown in Table 25.

Table 25. Key Implementation Steps for High-Friction Surface – State Intersections
Step Organization Responsible for Step Completion Date (Months After Implementation Plan Acceptance)
1. Develop guidelines for friction courses; surface improvement approach lengths; severe wheel path rutting mitigation; and testing requirements for friction levels for intersection approaches. Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety
1 month
2. Skid test approaches on the list and determine if skid resistance needs increased. Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety

District Office Traffic Engineering Operations Engineer District Office Skid Testing Crew
5 months
3. Field review intersections on the wet pavement list that have low skid numbers and determine the appropriate skid treatment. District Office Traffic Engineering and/or Safety Engineer 8 months
4. Develop plans and let contracts to apply skid treatments at designated intersections. District Office Traffic Engineering and/or Safety Engineer

District Office Consultants
16 months


8. Enforcement-Assisted Lights

Description

This initiative involves pursuing the use of the enforcement-assisted lights for use at signalized intersections with a significant number of angle crashes over a 5-year period. Candidate municipalities with significant numbers of angle crashes are listed in Table 26.

Table 26. Enforcement-Assisted Lights – Candidate Cities
Name Angle Crashes Estimated Angle Crashes at Signalized Intersections (45% of Total Angle Crashes)
City A 22,336 10,050
City B 22,335 10,050
City C 8,182 3,680
City D 4,228 1,900
City E 4,181 1,880
City F 3,415 1,540
City G 3,411 1,540
  • It is estimated that the total number of signals in these cities is 2,300.
  • A CRF of 0.15 for enforcement-assisted lights is used.
  • It is assumed that 1 medium size city with an estimated 2,000 angle crashes (i.e., close to average for a medium-sized city) at signalized intersections will agree to adopt the enforcement-assisted lights as a pilot or demonstration and will apply them at signalized intersections that comprise 90% of all angle crashes. The estimated angle crashes in these cities is 0.90 x 2,000 = 1,800 angle crashes at signalized intersections impacted.
  • The severity of angle crashes at intersections within these cities is estimated at 0.25 fatalities per 100 crashes and 5.0 incapacitating injuries per 100 crashes.
  • The estimated annual reduction in angle crashes over a 6-year time period is 1,800 x 0.15/6 = 45.
  • The estimated annual reduction in incapacitating injuries for city-wide efforts over a 6-year time period is 1,800 x 0.15 x (5.0/100)/6 = 2.25.
  • The estimated annual reduction in fatalities for city-wide efforts over a 6-year time period is 1,800 x 0.15 x (0.25/100)/6 =0.11.
  • The cost for adding the enforcement-assisted lights at 300 intersections at $300 per intersection is $0.09 million.


The State has minimal experience with the use of enforcement-assisted lights. In addition, the actual effectiveness at reducing angle crashes has not been adequately validated. As such, the State DOT will proceed cautiously with deployment, initially concentrating deployment at those intersections with high numbers of angle crashes and signal designs and timing that closely conform to current best safety practices. A pilot demonstration will be deployed at approximately 50 of these signalized intersections and evaluated to determine probable effectiveness. If effective, the effort will be expanded to the remaining candidate locations.

Key Implementation Steps

The key steps necessary to fully implement this initiative and realize the safety benefits of the improvements, the organizations responsible for each key step, and the schedule for this activity are shown in Table 27.

Table 27. Key Implementation Steps for Enforcement-Assisted Lights
Step Organization Responsible for Step Completion Date (Months After Implementation Plan Acceptance)
1. Solicit interest from one or more of the cities listed in the above table to pilot the enforcement-assisted lights. Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety
2 month
2. Identify interested candidate cities. Hold meetings with candidate cities to determine interest and commitment. Obtain police and judicial agreement to enforce red-light running citations using enforcement-assisted lights. Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of SafetyDistrict Office Traffic Engineering Operations Engineer
8 months
3. Identify approximately 50-100 potential pilot intersections per city from the signalized intersections with angle crashes listed to deploy and evaluate. Prepare and issue a package of high-crash local intersections and guidelines for candidate enforcement-assisted lights and timing adjustments to municipalities that have high angle crash signalized intersections on the potential pilot intersection list. District Office Traffic Engineering Operations and/or Safety Engineer

Designated City Representative(s)
12 months
4. Initiate process to meet further with cities, including police and judiciary, either one-to-one or at a group meeting to secure local agency participation in the initiative and the commitment to enforcement. Encourage use of the guidelines provided, identify improvements, and solicit feedback to the DOT. District Office Traffic Engineering Operations and/or Safety Engineer 15 months
5. For those municipalities desiring to pilot enforcement-assisted lights, complete preparation to install confirmation lights and install. (Ensure that the yellow and all red clearance intervals at the pilot intersections are established using the ITE formula and the 85th percentile speed.) District Office Traffic Engineering Operations and/or Safety Enginee 30 months
6. Develop and complete an evaluation plan for initial enforcement-assisted lights. Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of SafetyConsultant
39 months
7. Make the decision to expand, modify, or terminate the enforcement-assisted light initiative. Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety
42 months


9. Corridor 3E Improvements on High-Speed Arterials with Very High Frequencies of Severe Intersection Crashes

Description

The State DOT has identified 12 State route corridors with 7 or more fatal intersection crashes and a significant number of severe injury intersection crashes over the past 6 years though crash data analysis. The intent of this countermeasure is to advance a set of 3E initiatives on three of these corridors to reduce the potential for future severe intersection crashes. For each corridor, this initiative will have as its objective a reduction in corridor intersection fatalities and incapacitating injuries by a minimum of 25 percent using a combination of low-cost infrastructure improvements and targeted education and enforcement initiatives. While the selection of the corridors has been based upon high frequencies of severe intersection crashes, the approach may be broader and encompass other corridor concerns such as road departure, 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 understand better the problems that need to be addressed and relate crash patterns to potential countermeasures. Corridor safety studies usually are conducted on 5 to 20 mile sections of high-volume arterials that exhibit a high frequency of severe and fatal crashes.

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

Additional team members may also include the District Traffic Engineer, 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 Safety Engineer and the District Media Specialist 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. It is anticipated that right turn in-right turn out turn limitations at stop-controlled intersections will be a significant countermeasure to consider on the multi-lane corridors.

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 review areas of concern defined from the crash analysis and team discussions and any other safety aspect identified during the field review. 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 Safety Engineer and the District Media Specialist 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 consideration of cost-effective improvements.

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.

The corridors where 3E improvements should be considered are summarized in Table 28. Since the corridor approach is new to the State DOT, a pilot effort of three corridors will be initiated. The Executive Committee will evaluate the pilot. It if considered beneficial, the pilot will be expanded to the remaining corridors, incorporating lessons learned from the pilot.

Table 28. Corridor 3E Improvements on High-Speed Arterials with Very High Frequencies of Severe Intersection Crashes – Candidate Locations
County On Location Street Severity Total Crashes
Fatal Incapacitating Injury Minor Injury Property Damage Only
H 30 13 92 295 857 1,257
R 1 12 35 60 133 240
S 62 9 20 71 196 296
A 31 8 29 103 587 727
P 72 8 41 82 198 329
N 6 8 27 52 128 215
B 40 7 51 66 173 297
C 3 7 27 106 318 458
F 52 7 20 209 565 801
R 301 7 15 93 288 403
AA 5 7 43 377 1,068 1,495
CC 1012 7 42 423 1,310 1,782
  • Number of potential corridors = 12.
  • Estimated number of corridors that may be implemented as a pilot = 3 (H-30, R-1, and one of the following S-62, A-31, P-72, N-6, B-40, C-3).
  • Estimated fatalities in the 3 corridors = 33.
  • Estimated incapacitating injuries in the 3 corridors = 150.
  • Estimated annual crashes in the 3 corridors = 2,000.
  • Estimated crash reduction factor for applying 3E improvements = 0.25.
  • Estimated annual reduction in crashes over a 6-year time period = 2,000 x 0.25/6 = 83.
  • Estimated annual reduction in incapacitating injuries over a 6-year time period = (150/6) x 0.25 = 7.5.
  • Estimated annual reduction in fatalities over a 6-year time period = (33/6) x 0.25 = 1.25.
  • Estimated costs at $2,000,000 per corridor for infrastructure and $100,000 for education/enforcement =$6.0 million (infrastructure), $0.3 million annually (education and enforcement).


Key Implementation Steps

The key steps necessary to fully implement this initiative and realize the safety benefits of the improvements, the organizations responsible for each key step, and the schedule to fully implement this activity are shown in Table 29.

Table 29. Key Implementation Steps for Corridor 3E Improvements on High-Speed Arterials with Very High Frequencies of Severe Intersection Crashes
Step Organization Responsible for Step Completion Date (Months After Implementation Plan Acceptance)
1. Review 12 corridors and select 3 of the corridors to pilot and lead the implementation. Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety

Governor's Highway Safety Representative

District Offices
1 month
2. Analyze data for the corridors selected, investigating all major crash patterns (including intersections) and prepare a report of findings. Headquarters Office of Safety 5 months
3. Select a multi-disciplinary team for each corridor to determine actions to reduce future crashes. Engineering Operations

Governor's Highway Safety Representative
6 months
4. Hold meeting of multi-disciplinary teams, complete field reviews of corridors, identify set of comprehensive 3E improvements, and prepare brief corridor reports summarizing actions and improvements proposed to reduce future fatalities. As part of the report, prepare estimated costs and schedules. Multi-Disciplinary Team 10 months
5. Obtain agency approval on the report, including approval of their roles as defined in the report. Affected Organizations 12 months
6. Begin implementation, including education and enforcement activities and development and letting of contract to implement infrastructure improvements. Affected Organizations 30 month
7. Evaluate corridor approach, take any lessons learned, and make a decision to expand, expand with modifications, or terminate corridor safety approach. Executive Committee 36 months
8. If decision is to expand or expand with modifications, proceed with steps 2 through 7 for remaining corridors. Executive Committee 60 months


10. Municipal-Wide 3E Improvements in Municipalities with High Frequencies of Severe Intersection Crashes

Description

The State DOT has identified 4 cities with the largest number of intersection fatalities over the past 6 years though crash data analysis. The purpose of this countermeasure is to identify a mid-size pilot city and initiate municipal-wide 3E approach, with an objective to reduce city intersection fatalities by a minimum of 10 percent using a combination of low-cost infrastructure improvements and targeted education and enforcement strategies 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 intersection safety initiative. If interested, a thorough "cleaning up" of the crash data for intersection crashes on State and local roads within the city area is completed such that clusters of crashes at the same intersection can be accurately combined. After the data is cleaned, participants conduct a thorough analysis of the crash characteristics in the city, with the particular 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 intersection safety problems in the city, jointly field review the selected problem intersections to gain personal and group consensus of the major safety issues, and collectively develop an overall set of 3E 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.

The cities where 3E improvements should be considered are summarized in Tables 30 and 31. Since the city-wide 3E approach is relatively new to the State DOT, the pilot program will be closely monitored by the Executive Committee. The pilot will be evaluated by the Executive Committee, and, if considered beneficial, may be expanded to additional cities, incorporating lessons learned. If not beneficial, the Executive Committee can terminate or redirect the efforts.

Table 30. Municipal-Wide 3E Improvements in Municipalities with High Frequencies of Severe Intersection Crashes – Candidate Cities with the Highest Intersection Fatalities and Crashes
County Severity Total Crashes Pedestrian Crashes
Fatal Incapacitating Injury Minor Injury Property Damage Only
City P 106 701 11,909 42,490 55,206 626
City R 90 1,027 10,750 40,993 52,860 240
City B 34 395 6,842 15,851 23,122 56
City D 25 256 2,717 8,383 11,381 32
  • Number of potential cities = 1 medium size city.
  • Estimated number of cities that may pursue 3E improvements – 1 (City B).
  • Estimated fatalities within the city = 34.
  • Estimated incapacitating injuries within the city = 395.
  • Estimated crash reduction factor for applying 3E improvements = 0.10.
  • Estimated annual reduction in crashes over a 6-year time period = 23,000 0.10/6 = 383.
  • Estimated annual reduction in incapacitating injuries over a 6-year time period = 395/6 0.10 = 6.6.
  • Estimated annual reduction in fatalities over a 6-year time period = 34/6 0.10 = 0.57.
  • Estimated costs at $1,000,000 per city for infrastructure and $100,000 annually for education/enforcement.


Table 31. Key Implementation Steps for Area-Wide City 3E Improvements
Step Organization Responsible for Step Completion Date (Months After Implementation Plan Acceptance)
1. Review the cities and tentatively select a pilot city. Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety

Governor's Highway Safety Representative
2 months
2. Contact selected city and determine interest. If not interested go to next candidate city. Finalize pilot city. Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety

Governor's Highway Safety Representative
5 months
3. Analyze crash data for pilot city, investigating all major intersection crash patterns and preparing a brief report of findings. Headquarters Office of Safety 9 months
4. Select a multi-disciplinary team to determine actions to reduce future crashes for the pilot city. Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety

Governor's Highway Safety Representative

City Police, Planning, and Traffic Engineering Representatives
10 months
5. Hold a meeting of the multi-disciplinary team, complete field views of problem and typical intersections, identify set of comprehensive 3E improvements, prepare a set of countermeasures and improvements proposed to reduce future intersection fatalities by at least 10 percent. As part of the set of countermeasures, prepare estimated costs and schedules. Multi-Disciplinary Team 12 months
6. Obtain agency approval on the set of countermeasures, including approval of their roles as defined in the plan. Affected Organizations 14 months
7. Begin implementation, including education and enforcement activities and development and letting of contract to implement infrastructure improvements. Affected Organizations 30 months
8. Evaluate city comprehensive approach, take any lessons learned, and make a decision to expand, expand with modifications, or terminate city comprehensive safety approach. Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety

Governor's Highway Safety Representative
36 months
9. If decision is to expand or expand with modifications, proceed with steps 2 through 9 for additional cities. Headquarters Office of Traffic Engineering Operations

Headquarters Office of Safety

Governor's Highway Safety Representative
42 months and beyond, based upon schedule set


11. Roundabouts

Description

Major improvements such as the construction of roundabouts require careful individual intersection analysis and are not appropriate to consider for systematic deployment. These major physical improvements have longer-term benefits since their expected lives may be 30 years or longer (as compared to about 10 years for signs and traffic signals). In addition, the effectiveness of these improvements to potentially reduce the number of crashes at a location is greater than lower-cost improvements. For example, the installation of roundabouts is expected to reduce severe intersection crashes by 90 percent. However their high initial costs prevent them from being considered for systematic deployment. In addition, significant factors such as available right of way, environmental issues, cost differentials between alternate major improvement types, and traffic operations will have an impact on choosing them as the optimum improvement type. As a result, these improvements are best suited to consider at intersections with the highest number of crashes.

Roundabouts are usually the most effective countermeasures in terms of reducing future crash potential; however, the high cost of construction significantly reduces the attractiveness of pursuing them. The expected rate of return in terms of lived saved per dollar invested is low compared to improving large numbers of intersections with lower-cost countermeasures. This is particularly the case when funding for safety is constrained and the objective is to reduce the maximum number of fatalities and incapacitating injuries possible with the available funds.

While intersections with the highest number of state-wide crashes will be considered as candidates for implementing systematic low-cost countermeasures as described earlier in the plan, these intersections also will be considered candidates for roundabout construction (where the CRF is 0.90 for fatalities and incapacitating injuries). Candidate intersections for roundabouts are shown in Table 32.

Table 32. Roundabouts – Threshold Levels for Determining Candidate Intersections
Locality and Ownership Traffic Control Threshold Crash Level Number of Intersections Number of Crashes
2003-2008
State Rural Intersections Signalized > 50 Crashes 1 51
State Rural Intersections Stop-Controlled > 50 Crashes 7 428
State Urban Intersections Signalized >150 Crashes 13 2,170
State Urban Intersections Stop-Controlled >120 Crashes 13 1,964


It is estimated that three roundabouts will be implemented during the time frame of this initiative, two at State, rural, stop-controlled intersections and one at State, rural, signalized intersections. The estimated annual reduction in crashes from these improvements is 32 crashes, 4 incapacitating injuries, and 0.36 fatalities.

Key Implementation Steps

The key steps necessary to fully implement this initiative and realize the safety benefits of the improvements, the organizations responsible for each key step, and the schedule to fully implement this activity are shown in Table 33.

Table 33. Key Implementation Steps for Roundabouts
Step Organization Responsible for Step Completion Date (Months After Implementation Plan Acceptance)
1. Develop and distribute guidelines for considering roundabouts. Headquarters Office of Safety 1 month
2. Analyze the 34 high-crash intersections (perform crash analysis and field reviews) to determine if roundabouts are appropriate solutions for the intersection. Develop project packages for each intersection where roundabouts are recommended, including cost estimates for the improvement. Headquarters Office of Safety 7 months
3. Analyze the packages and make an assessment of the viability of the improvements and the potential impact of the project in terms of utilization of existing revenues and impact on achieving the intersection fatality goal. Select a minimum of three intersections to convert to roundabouts. Advise Safety and upper management of the assessment. State DOT Upper Management Within 1 month of receipt of the package
4. Develop contract plans for approved projects and let the project. District Offices 30 months
5. Implement improvements. District Offices 48 months


4 Source: Federal Highway Administration, Informational Report on Lighting Design for Midblock Crosswalks, FHWA-HRT- 08-053 (Washington, DC: April 2008).

5 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Toolbox of Countermeasures and Their Potential Effectiveness to Make Intersections Safer, (Washington, DC: April 2004), http://www.ite.org/library/IntersectionSafety/toolbox.pdf.

< Previous Table of Contents Next >
Page last modified on September 4, 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