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 / Local and Rural Road / Delta Region Transportation Development Program

Delta Region Transportation Development Program: Rural Safety Innovation Program Evaluation – Final Report

Downloadable Version
PDF [1.7 MB]

February 2014

1. Report No.
FHWA-SA-14-029
2. Government Accession
No.
3. Recipient's Catalog No.
4. Title and Subtitle
Delta Region Transportation Development Program: Rural Safety Innovation Program Evaluation
5. Report Date
February 2014
6. Performing Organization Code
7.Author(s)
D. J. Torbic, K. M. Bauer, and J. M. Hutton
8. Performing Organization Report No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Battelle
505 King Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43201
and MRIGlobal
425 Volker Boulevard
Kansas City, MO 64110
10. Work Unit No.
11. Contract or Grant No.
DTFH61-08-D-00032
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE
Washington, DC 20590
13. Type of Report and Period
September 2009 - April 2014
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes
FHWA Contracting Officer Technical Manager: Roya Amjadi

16. Abstract
The objective of this research project was to evaluate the effectiveness of the highway safety improvement projects implemented under the Rural Safety Innovation Program – Delta Region Transportation Development Program (RSIP-DRTDP) toward reducing fatalities and injuries on rural roads. Many of the safety improvement projects implemented as part of the RSIP-DRTDP were able to achieve the overall goal of USDOT's Rural Safety Initiative to improve safety on rural highways by decreasing loss of lives and injuries. In Mississippi, the installation of centerline rumble strips on rural two-lane roads where shoulder rumble strips were already present resulted in a decrease in target crashes. In Louisiana, improved signing and pavement markings at rural stop-controlled intersections effectively reduced total and fatal and all injury (FI) intersection and intersection-related crashes. In Arkansas, the safety evaluation of cable median barrier installed on rural interstates was able to demonstrate the beneficial effects on all crash types and severities, and in particular, fatal and serious (FS) injury crashes. For the remaining RSIP projects evaluated, the safety effects of the treatment combinations could not be reliably quantified at this time due to insufficient data. Finally, the lessons learned in developing a sign inventory system and installing dynamic message signs and closed-circuit video, respectively, will benefit other agencies interested in similar programs. The knowledge gained from the evaluation of the RSIP-DRTDP projects can benefit other highway agencies when making funding decisions concerning future safety improvement projects and programs.

17. Key Words:
Highway safety
Countermeasure evaluation
Rural Safety Innovation Program.
18. Distribution Statement
No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161
19. Security Classif. (of this report)
Unclassified
20. Security Classif. (of this page)
Unclassified
21. No. of Pages
69
22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

Metric Conversion Chart

SI (Modern Metric) Conversion Factors

Contents

Executive Summary

Chapter 1. Introduction

Chapter 2. Detailed Quantitative

Chapter 3. Simpler Quantitative Evaluation

Chapter 4. Qualitative Evaluations

Chapter 5. Conclusions

Chapter 6. References

List of Tables

Table 1. Agencies and Countermeasures Involved in the RSIP-DRTDP

Table 2. Levels of Evaluation and Agencies Involved

Table 3. RSIP Project 27: Approximate Locations of Centerline Rumble Strip Installations from the RSIP in Mississippi

Table 4. RSIP Project 27: Location of Treatment Sites Used in Analysis of Dual Application of Centerline and Shoulder Rumble Strips in Mississippi

Table 5. RSIP Project 27: Location of Nontreatment Sites Used in Analysis of Dual Application of Centerline and Shoulder Rumble Strips in Mississippi

Table 6. RSIP Project 27: Summary Statistics for the Before and After Periods for Treatment Sites in Mississippi

Table 7. RSIP Project 27: Summary Statistics for Entire Study Period for Nontreatment Sites in Mississippi

Table 8. RSIP Project 27: SPF Coefficients, Target Crash Proportions, and CalibrationFactors Used for Mississippi Data

Table 9. RSIP Project 27: Safety Effectiveness of Dual Application of Centerline and Shoulder Rumble Strips on Target Crashes in Mississippi

Table 10. RSIP Project 36: RSIP Safety Improvements in Illinois by County

Table 11. RSIP Project 36: Location of Treatment Sites in Illinois and Types of Safety Improvements

Table 12. RSIP Project 36: Location of Nontreatment Sites in Illinois

Table 13. RSIP Project 36: Summary Statistics for the Before and After Periods for Treatment Sites in Illinois

Table 14. RSIP Project 36: Summary Statistics for the Entire Study Period for Nontreatment Sites in Illinois

Table 15. RSIP Project 36: Target Crash Proportions and Calibration Factors Used for Illinois Data

Table 16. RSIP Project 36: Safety Effectiveness of Horizontal Curve Delineation and Signing on Total Crashes in Illinois

Table 17. RSIP Project 36: Safety Effectiveness of Horizontal Curve Delineation and Signing on SVROR Crashes in Illinois

Table 18. RSIP Project 37: Location of Treatment Sites in Louisiana and Types of Safety Improvements

Table 19. RSIP Project 37: Summary Statistics for the Before and After Treatment Periods for Treatment Intersections in Louisiana–All Collision Types

Table 20. RSIP Project 37: Summary Statistics for the Entire Study Period for Nontreatment Intersections in Louisiana-All Collision Types

Table 21. RSIP Project 37: Summary Statistics for the Before and After Treatment Periods for Treatment Intersections in Louisiana–Target Crashes

Table 22. RSIP Project 37: Summary Statistics for the Entire Study Period for Nontreatment Intersections in Louisiana–Target Crashes

Table 23. RSIP Project 37: Breakdown of Louisiana Intersections by Facility Type and Number of Legs

Table 24. RSIP Project 37: SPF Coefficients, Target Crash Proportions,and Calibration Factors Used for Louisiana Intersection Data

Table 25. RSIP Project 37: Combined Intersection CMFs Used for Louisiana Treatment Intersections

Table 26. RSIP Project 37: Combined Intersection CMFs Used for Louisiana Nontreatment Intersections

Table 27. RSIP Project 37: Safety Effectiveness of Combination Intersection Improvements on Total and Target Crashes in Louisiana–Three-Leg Stop– Controlled Intersections on Rural Two-Lane Roads

Table 28. RSIP Project 37: Safety Effectiveness of Combination Intersection
Improvements on Total and Target Crashes in Louisiana–Four-Leg Stop-Controlled Intersections on Rural Two-Lane Roads

Table 29. RSIP Project 37: Safety Effectiveness of Combination Intersection Improvements on Total and Target Crashes in Louisiana-Three-Leg Stop- Controlled Intersections on Multilane Highways

Table 30. RSIP Project 33: Summary Statistics for the Before Period for Treatment Sites in Arkansas

Table 31. RSIP Project 33: Summary Statistics for the After Period for Treatment Sites in Arkansas

Table 32. RSIP Project 33: Regression Results and Treatment Effects by Crash Severity

List of Figures

Figure 1. Equation 1 – General form of Safety Analyst SPF for rural two-lane roads for total and fatal and all injury severity levels.

Figure 2. Equation 2 – General form of Safety Analyst SPF for rural two-lane roads adjusted for crash type and local conditions

Figure 3. Equation 3 – General form of HSM SPF for rural two-lane roads for all severity levels combined (total).

Figure 4. Equation 4 – Overdispersion parameter.

Figure 5. Equation 5 – General form of HSM SPF for rural two-lane roads adjusted for crash type, horizontal curvature, and local conditions.

Figure 6. Equation 6 – CMF for horizontal curves on rural two-lane highways

Figure 7. Equation 7 – Equation 6. General form of HSM SPF for intersections on rural two-lane and rural multilane roads for total and fatal and all injury severity levels.

Figure 8. Equation 8 – General form of HSM SPF for intersections on rural two-lane and rural multilane roads adjusted for crash type, combined CMFs, and local conditions

Figure 9. Equation 9 – General model to calculate predicted crashes

Figure 10. RSIP Project 32: Excerpt of Message Log from One DMS

List of Acronyms

AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
AHTD Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department
CCTV Closed Circuit Television Camera
CMF Crash Modification Factor
DMS Dynamic Message Sign
DRTDP Delta Region Transportation Development Program
EB Empirical Bayes
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FI Fatal and All Injury Crashes
FS Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes
GEE General Estimating Equation
GLM Generalized Linear Model
GPS Global Positioning System
HSM Highway Safety Manual
IDOT Illinois Department of Transportation
LaDOTD Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development
LED Light Emitting Diode
MoDOT Missouri Department of Transportation
MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
MVMT Million Vehicle Miles Traveled
PSA Public Service Announcement RPM Raised Pavement Markings
RSIP Rural Safety Innovation Program
SE Standard Error
SPF Safety Performance Function
SVROR Single Vehicle Run-off-Road
TDOT Tennessee Department of Transportation
USDOT United States Department of Transportation

 

  Table of Content Next >
Page last modified on June 12, 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