• Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
• Intersection Safety
  • Crash Facts
  • Human Factors
  • Alternative Intersection Design
  • Pedestrians & Bicyclists
  • Red-Light Running
  • Roundabouts
  • Rural Intersection Safety
  • Signalized Intersections
  • Unsignalized Intersections
  • Resources
• Local & Rural Road Safety
• Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety
• Roadway Departure Safety
• Roadway Safety Data Program (RSDP)
• Speed Management Safety
• Additional Safety Programs & Initiatives
  • Proven Safety Countermeasures
  • Capacity Building
  • Crash Tested Hardware
  • Facts & Statistics
  • Focused Approach
  • Geometric Design
  • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
  • Motorcycles
  • Newsletters
  • Older Road Users
  • Policy & Guidelines
  • Railway-Highway Grade Crossings
  • Road Safety Audits (RSA)
  • Safe Routes to School
  • SAFETEA–LU
  • Safety Research
  • Section 402 Highway Safety Funds
  • Tools & Technology
  • Toward Zero Deaths
  • Work Zones

Home > Intersections > Resources

Intersection Safety Implementation Plan Workshop

July 2009

Downloadable Version
PDF [1.21 MB]
PPT [3.23 MB]

slide 1

Intersection Safety Implementation Plan Workshop

January 21-22, 2009

Example Presentation

Preparer Notes:

Change workshop date.

Speaker Notes:

A State DOT representative should kick off the meeting. If self introductions weren't initiated, ask each participant to briefly introduce themselves (name, organization, and title) starting in the front row.

slide 2

Workshop Goals and Objectives

• Examine the comprehensive and systematic approaches to reducing statewide intersection fatalities
• Identify sets of acceptable countermeasures and deployment characteristics that can reduce statewide intersection fatalities cost effectively and achieve the intersection safety goal
• Develop a preliminary strategic implementation or action plan to reduce statewide intersection fatalities cost effectively
• Identify strategic directions and steps needed to successfully implement the plan

Speaker Notes:

Review the goals and objectives of the workshop.

slide 3

Workshop Outcome

Preliminary Intersection Safety Implementation Plan to Reduce Statewide Intersection Fatalities Cost Effectively

Speaker Notes:

Review, or have on hand for participants to review at their discretion, a handout of the example intersection safety implementation plan for reference.

slide 4

Example Intersection Safety Implementation Plan

Speaker Notes:

Indicate that an updated example intersection safety implementation plan will be on the FHWA Office of Safety's website later in 2009.

slide 5

Morning Agenda – Day 1

• 8:30 AM – Welcome and Introductions
  • Review of Workshop Goals, Objectives, and Outcome
  • Background on Reducing Intersection Safety Fatalities
• 8:45 AM – Module I: Intersection Goal, Data Analysis, and Countermeasure Identification
• 10:00 AM – Break
• 10:15 AM – Module I Continued
• 12:00 PM – Lunch

Speaker Notes:

Review workshop etiquette – put cell phones, pagers, etc. on vibrate; if possible, don't answer unless it is urgent; return promptly from breaks and lunch.

Identify location of rest rooms and break/lunch facilities.

Explain that all modules are customizable and can be scaled down or up depending on how participants would prefer to spend the workshop time.

Explain that times shown reflect a sample balance that could be used to accomplish all modules.

slide 6

Afternoon Agenda – Day 1

• 1:00 PM – Module II: Putting It All Together
• 2:45 PM – Break
• 3:00 PM – Module II Continued
• Straw Man Set of Countermeasures, Deployment Characteristics, Costs, and Lives Saved
• 4:30 PM – Adjourn

slide 7

Morning Agenda – Day 2

• 8:30 AM – Module II Reality Check
  • Review Day 1 results
  • Review and fine tune straw man
  • Check personal knowledge of high-crash intersections to determine if improvement types make sense
• 9:45 AM – Break
• 10:00 AM – Module III: Strategic Direction and Actions
  • Crosscutting barriers
  • Key countermeasure barriers
• 12:00 PM – Lunch

slide 8

Afternoon Agenda – Day 2

• 1:00 PM – Module III: Strategic Direction and Actions (continued)
• 2:00 PM – Module IV: Action Items to Implement Components of Implementation Plan Outline
  • Key steps to implement countermeasures
  • Performance measures
  • Implementation plan outline
• 3:00 PM – Module V: Next Steps
• 3:15 PM – Adjourn

slide 9

Approach for Reducing Intersection Safety Fatalities

Speaker Notes:

Review goal of the initiative-to reduce statewide numbers of intersection fatalities.

Explain that the traditional approach, improving a relatively small number of intersections with the highest frequencies of crashes is probably not sufficient, by itself, to reduce substantial statewide levels of intersection fatalities. Additional approaches must be considered.

slide 10

Universe of Intersection Crashes

Speaker Notes:

Explain that if statewide levels of intersection incapacitating crashes and fatalities are to be reduced, the universe of intersection crashes needs to be evaluated considering state/local intersection ownership (because of different project development and funding issues); urban/rural areas (because of different severities for the same type of crash and in some cases different countermeasures); and different traffic control at the intersection (because of different countermeasures and severities).

slide 11

Reducing Intersection Fatalities

• Traditional Approach
  • Annual infrastructure improvements of 50-75 high-crash intersections statewide
  • Cost-effective but minimal statewide impact
• Systematic Approach
  • Improve substantial number of targeted intersections which have severe crashes with relatively low to moderate cost improvements
  • Rely on low-cost, cost-effective countermeasures
  • Improve 3-6% of intersections that have 25-45% of the statewide intersection crashes
  • Higher overall cost but greater impact in terms of statewide levels of lives saved
• Comprehensive Approach
  • Complement infrastructure improvements with targeted enforcement and education initiatives
  • 3E (engineering, education, and enforcement) coordinated initiatives on highway corridors and municipalities that have high numbers of intersection injuries and fatalities

Speaker Notes:

Review the differences among the traditional, systematic, and comprehensive approaches.

slide 12

Traditional Approach Improvement Categories

• High-crash intersections
  • Very high number of crashes per intersection (> 50 crashes in 5 years for rural intersections; 100 crashes per intersection for urban areas)
• Application of countermeasures with highest CRFs (e.g., roundabouts, left turn lanes)
  • Unfortunately, these also are the highest cost
• Individual intersection analyses required
• Few improvements
  • Usually less than 100 per year
• By itself, negligible impact on reducing statewide fatalities

Speaker Notes:

Provide details about the traditional approach.

slide 13

Systematic Approach

• Reverse of the traditional approach
• Start with effective, low-cost countermeasures
• Find intersections with targeted crashes where countermeasures are cost-effective to install
• Install systematically at numerous intersections where they are cost-effective
  • Not limited to the highest crash locations
• Typically, treating 3-6% of the higher crash intersections can impact 25-45% of the statewide problem
• Systematic approach can reduce statewide fatalities

Speaker Notes:

Provide details about the systematic approach.

Refer to the FHWA report Low-Cost Safety Enhancements for Stop-Controlled and Signalized Intersections for further information.

slide 14

Systematic Improvement Characteristics

• Signalized and stop-controlled
• Urban and rural
• State and local
• Low-cost, cost-effective countermeasures
• Numerous widespread, cost-effective deployments

Speaker Notes:

Provide details about the systematic approach.

slide 15

Comprehensive Approach

• Corridor Improvements
  • Routes that have a very high number of intersection fatalities and severe injuries
  • Engineering, education, and enforcement coordinated corridor-wide enforcement
• Area-Wide 3E Improvements
  • City-wide, system approach in cities with a disproportionate number of fatal or severe intersection crashes per capita or VMT
  • Engineering, education, and enforcement coordinated area-wide enforcement

Speaker Notes:

Provide details about the comprehensive approach.

Note that the comprehensive approach is not applied at single isolated intersections. Education and enforcement initiatives are too costly to deploy at a single intersection.

slide 16

Module I: Intersection Goals, Data Analysis, and Countermeasure Identification

slide 17

Module I Activities

• Review the goals and/or objectives for intersections identified in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)
• Discuss the results of intersection crash data analysis
• Review acceptable potential countermeasures to impact crash problems

Speaker Notes:

Review Module I activities.

Refer to the State SHSP goal.

slide 18

Module I Outcomes

• Validation of State goals and objectives as they relate to intersections
• Better understanding of intersection crash characteristics particularly as they relate to intersection goals
• Identification of acceptable potential countermeasures to consider for cost-effective deployment to help achieve the goal

Speaker Notes:

Review Module I outcomes.

slide 19

State Safety Goal

• Strategic Highway Safety Program Overall Goal
  • 850 or fewer fatalities by 2012
    • 992 in 2008
    • Probable lower fatalities in 2009 associated with the economy
  • 14.3% reduction in fatalities (2008-2012)
    • Economic downturn/upturn affects fatalities
    • By 2012, economy could be on upswing and have a negative impact on fatalities

Preparer Notes:

Replace the goal on the slide with the State's SHSP overall safety goal.

Speaker Notes:

Review the SHSP overall safety goal in the slide and make sure the audience understands it.

slide 20

Intersection Safety Goal

• 2003-2008 intersection fatalities – 214; 184; 187; 210; 187; 200 – no apparent trend
• Mean intersection fatalities – 197
• 14.3% reduction in intersection fatalities (proportional to total fatality reduction goal)
• Assumes downswing and upswing of economy between 2008 and 2012 will be neutral
• Target reduction in 2012 intersection fatalities = 197 x 0.143 = 28 fewer intersection fatalities in 2012

Preparer Notes:

Insert the intersection safety goal in the SHSP if one exists. If an intersection-specific safety goal is not included in the SHSP, provide the steps used to establish an intersection safety goal which aligns with the overall SHSP goal. (Note: May take two or more slides to fully develop.)

Speaker Notes:

Review the intersection safety goal in the slide and make sure the audience understands it.

slide 21

Intersection Safety Emphasis Strategies – SHSP

• Engineering
  • Improve intersection awareness
    • Install stop-approach rumble strips
    • Improve signage and intersection visibility
    • Improve sight distance
    • Install dynamic flashing beacons
    • Install or enhance intersection lighting
  • Implement innovative engineering designs
    • Install roundabouts
    • Install J-turns
    • Add offset turn lanes
    • Use traffic calming strategies (narrowing lanes)

Preparer Notes:

List the intersection safety strategies in the SHSP. Hopefully, most of them will align with the countermeasures that will be identified in the Example Data Analysis Package and Straw Man Outline. (Note: May take two or more slides to fully develop.)

Speaker Notes:

Review the intersection safety strategies in the SHSP.

If most of the strategies align with the countermeasures identified in the Example Data Analysis Package and Straw Man Outline, indicate that development of the intersection safety implementation plan will align with these strategies.

slide 22

Intersection Safety Emphasis Strategies – SHSP

• Engineering (continued)
• Modify signal phasing and timing
  • Protect left-turn movement
  • Provide adequate clearance times (ITE guidelines)
  • Provide dilemma zone protection
• Upgrade signal identification to assist officers in enforcing red-light violations
• Remove unwarranted signals
• Use proper planning and design of access to public roadways
• Access management planning

slide 23

Intersection Safety Emphasis Strategies – SHSP

• Education
  • Educate roadway users on intersection traffic controls (permissive left turn movement with traffic signals)
• Enforcement
  • Increase enforcement of intersection violations (red light running, regulatory signs)

slide 24

SHSP Basic Phases

• Producing the SHSP
• Producing the Implementation Plan
• Implementation
• Evaluation and Updating

Speaker Notes:

Review the basic phases of the SHSP.

slide 25

Six-Year Fatality Analysis

	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008
Total Intersection Fatalities (FARS)	198	173	167	206	173	207
Total State Intersection Fatalities*	214	184	187	210	187	200

* Fatalities from State data

Preparer Notes:

Replace the data on this slide with state-specific data. Note that six years of data were used in this example.

Speaker Notes:

Provide a comparison between FARS reported and state data reported intersection fatalities.

If there are large discrepancies between the two, conduct an open discussion on potential reasons for the differences and actions that may be taken to make them more similar.

slide 26

Intersection Crash Data Analysis

See Data Analysis Package and Straw Man Outline

Speaker Notes:

Walk through all of the tables up to those that begin listing the countermeasures or involve development of the straw man (Tables 1-66 in the Example Data Analysis Package and Straw Man Outline).

Highlight any areas where significant frequencies or fatalities are defined.

slides 27-29

State Intersection Crash Data Summary

	State Rural Signal	State Rural Stop-Controlled	State Urban Signal	State Urban Stop-Controlled	Local Rural Signal	Local Rural Stop-Controlled	Local Urban Signal	Local Urban Stop-Controlled
All Crashes
Crashes	4,107	30,232	73,913	82,710	676	10,154	73,815	139,491
Fatalities	17	483	124	177	5	53	159	164
Incapacitating Injuries	227	3,769	2,482	2,734	11	531	2,160	3,275
Fatalities per 100 Crashes	0.41	1.6	0.17	0.21	0.74	0.52	0.22	0.12
Incapacitating Injuries per 100 Crashes	5.53	12.47	3.36	3.31	1.63	5.23	2.93	2.35
Divided Highway Crashes
Crashes	829	3,799	21,266	17,814	6	6	909	1,185
Fatalities	8	142	54	65	-	-	5	4
Incapacitating Injuries	76	863	856	637	-	-	32	52
Fatalities per 100 Crashes	0.97	3.74	0.25	0.36	-	-	0.55	0.34
Incapacitating Injuries per 100 Crashes	9.17	22.72	4.03	3.58	-	-	3.52	4.37
Angle Crashes
Crashes	1,588	14,393	27,278	28,677	238	4,066	31,643	54,978
Fatalities	11	346	66	129	5	26	86	97
Incapacitating Injuries	148	2,404	1,520	1,632	5	316	1,323	1,842
Fatalities per 100 Crashes	0.69	2.4	0.24	0.45	2.1	0.64	0.27	0.18
Incapacitating Injuries per 100 Crashes	9.32	16.7	5.57	5.69	2.1	7.77	4.18	3.35
Left-Turn Crashes
Crashes	1,266	-	21,172	-	196	-	19,742	-
Fatalities	5	-	35	-	1	-	39	-
Incapacitating Injuries	77	-	1,127	-	2	-	757	-
Fatalities per 100 Crashes	0.39	-	0.17	-	0.51	-	0.2	-
Incapacitating Injuries per 100 Crashes	6.08	-	5.32	-	1.02	-	3.83	-
Pedestrian Crashes
Crashes	7	11	236	41	1	15	879	373
Fatalities	1	-	5	-	-	-	29	5
Incapacitating Injuries	3	2	66	4	0	4	170	56
Fatalities per 100 Crashes	-	-	2.12	-	-	-	3.3	1.34
Incapacitating Injuries per 100 Crashes	42.86	18.18	27.97	9.76	0	26.67	19.34	15.01
Dark Crashes
Crashes	721	5,050	17,840	13,234	110	1,618	17,814	28,118
Fatalities	7	111	54	29	3	13	81	73
Incapacitating Injuries	53	847	683	544	1	91	631	765
Fatalities per 100 Crashes	0.97	2.2	0.3	0.22	-	0.8	0.47	0.28
Incapacitating Injuries per 100 Crashes	7.35	16.77	3.83	4.11	0.91	5.62	3.54	2.72
Wet Pavement Crashes
Crashes	433	3,238	5,136	2,506	27	345	5,136	1,548
Fatalities	5	48	7	1	-	1	7	2
Incapacitating Injuries	31	428	154	246	2	46	25	28
Fatalities per 100 Crashes	-	1.48	0.14	-	-	-	0.14	-
Incapacitating Injuries per 100 Crashes	7.16	1.22	3	5.06	7.41	13.33	1.61	1.12

Preparer Notes:

Replace the data with State-specific information, in the same or a similar table. (Note: The types of crashes in the first column is dependent on the type of crashes that can be extracted from the State crash database; may take two or more slides to fully display.)

Speaker Notes:

Review the table(s).

Identify any line items that have either a significant frequency of fatalities or fatalities per 100 crashes.

slide 30

Reducing Intersection Fatalities Crash Data

• Traditional Approach
  • Annual infrastructure improvements of 50-75 high-crash intersections statewide
  • Cost-effective but minimal statewide impact
• Systematic Approach
  • Improve substantial number of targeted intersections which have severe crashes with relatively low to moderate cost improvements
  • Rely on cost-effective countermeasures
  • Higher overall cost but greater impact in terms of lives saved
• Comprehensive Approach
  • Complement infrastructure improvements with targeted enforcement and education initiatives
  • 3E (engineering, education, and enforcement) coordinated initiatives on highway corridors and municipalities that have high numbers of intersection injuries and fatalities

Speaker Notes:

Again review the differences among the traditional, systematic, and comprehensive approaches, highlighting the traditional approach.

slide 31

Traditional Approach

• Usually highest intersection crash locations
• If a fatal crash occurred at an intersection in the recent past, it is unlikely that one will occur in the future even if no preventative action is taken

Speaker Notes:

State that sometimes assumptions may be made that if a fatality exists at a given intersection, and the intersection is improved, then a future fatality has been averted. This is probably not the case.

slide 32

Fatal Crash Distribution – 2003-2008

Preparer Notes:

Change the data to reflect statewide statistics on the number of intersections that have had one, two, three, or more fatalities over the analysis period.

Speaker Notes:

(If applicable) Note that the data show very few intersections that have had more than one fatal crash in comparison to the number of intersections that had one fatal crash.

slide 33

Factors that Impact the Difference Between Life and Death in an Intersection Crash

• Speed
• Type of crash
• Point of Impact
• Type and mass of involved vehicle(s)
• Safety belt usage
• Type of highway
• Weather and surface conditions
• Time of day
• Type of traffic control
• Crash location – urban or rural
• Age and health of drivers and occupants
• EMS capabilities
• Distance to nearest hospital
• Other variables

Speaker Notes:

Explain that, besides the characteristics of the infrastructure at the intersection, there are many additional independent variables that are important in determining if a crash will be a fatality or a injury crash.

slide 34

Traditional Approach Improvement Categories

• Highest state wide severe crash intersections
  • Very high number of crashes per intersection (> 50 crashes in 5 years for rural intersections; 100 crashes per intersection for urban areas)
• Ideally, application of countermeasures with highest CRFs (e.g., roundabouts, left turn lanes)
  • Unfortunately, these also are the highest cost
• Individual intersection analyses required
• Few improvements
  • Usually between 50 and 75 per year for an average size state
• By itself, negligible impact on reducing statewide fatalities

Speaker Notes:

Explain that this is the approach that many States take to address intersection crash problems.

Indicate that while it is important to continue, this approach, by itself, probably will not result in any substantial reduction in statewide levels of intersection fatalities.

slide 35

Reducing Intersection Fatalities Crash Data

• Traditional Approach
  • Annual infrastructure improvements of 50-75 high-crash intersections statewide
  • Cost-effective but minimal statewide impact
• Systematic Approach
  • Improve substantial number of targeted intersections which have severe crashes with relatively low to moderate cost improvements
  • Rely on cost-effective countermeasures
  • Higher overall cost but greater impact in terms of lives saved
• Comprehensive Approach
  • Complement infrastructure improvements with targeted enforcement and education initiatives
  • 3E (engineering, education, and enforcement) coordinated initiatives on highway corridors and municipalities that have high numbers of intersection injuries and fatalities

Speaker Notes:

Again review the differences among the traditional, systematic, and comprehensive approaches, highlighting the systematic approach.

slide 36

Systematic Approach

• Reverse of the traditional approach
• Start with effective, low-cost countermeasures
• Find intersections with targeted crashes from the crash data base where countermeasures are cost-effective to install
• Install systematically at numerous intersections where they are cost-effective
  • Not limited to the highest crash locations
• Crash types with higher numbers of fatalities per 100 crashes
• Typically, treating 3-6% of the higher crash intersections can impact 25-45% of the statewide problem
• Systematic approach can reduce statewide fatalities

Speaker Notes:

Review the systematic approach.

slide 37

Intersection Crash Distribution Types – State and Local

Traffic Control	Locality	Total	Angle	Left Turn	Dark	Wet	Pedestrian	Speeding
Stop	Rural	X	X	X	X	X		X
Stop	Urban	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Signal	Rural	X	X	X	X	X		X
Signal	Urban	X	X	X	X	X	X

Speaker Notes:

Explain that each cell with an X represents a specific type of crash which can be impacted by a specific type of countermeasure. Data on severity (fatalities per 100 crashes and the distribution of intersections with crashes by the number of crashes per intersection) are developed for each cell. Additional distributions may be developed if sufficient reliable roadway information are known, such as the number of through lanes, divided/undivided, and total intersection input AADT.

slide 38

Reducing Intersection Fatalities Crash Data

• Traditional Approach
  • Annual infrastructure improvements of 50-75 high-crash intersections statewide
  • Cost-effective but minimal statewide impact
• Systematic Approach
  • Improve substantial number of targeted intersections which have severe crashes with relatively low to moderate cost improvements
  • Rely on cost-effective countermeasures
  • Higher overall cost but greater impact in terms of lives saved
• Comprehensive Approach
  • Complement infrastructure improvements with targeted enforcement and education initiatives
  • 3E (engineering, education, and enforcement) coordinated initiatives on highway corridors and municipalities that have high numbers of intersection injuries and fatalities

Speaker Notes:

Again review the differences among the traditional, systematic, and comprehensive approaches, highlighting the comprehensive approach.

slide 39

Comprehensive Approach

• Corridor intersection safety
• Targeted municipal enforcement and education

Speaker Notes:

Review the systematic approach, noting that it is applied to those corridors and municipalities which have the highest frequencies of fatal and severe intersection crashes

slide 40

Comprehensive Approach Corridors

See Data Analysis Package and Straw Man Outline

Speaker Notes:

Refer to the crash tables in data analysis package. Open the final corridor listing table.

slide 41

Top Severe Intersection Crash Corridors

Preparer Notes:

Change the data to reflect State-specific information.

Speaker Notes:

Discuss the information in the table.

slide 42

Comprehensive Approach Municipalities

See Data Analysis Package and Straw Man Outline

Speaker Notes:

Walk through the data analysis package. Open the municipality statewide listing table.

slide 43

Top Municipalities with Severe Intersection Crashes

Preparer Notes:

Change the data to reflect State-specific information.

Speaker Notes:

Discuss the information in the table.

slide 44

Applicable Countermeasures

• Systematic Approach – Stop-Controlled Intersections
  • Basic set of sign and marking improvements
  • Either a) flashing solar powered LED beacons on advance intersection warning signs and STOP signs or b) flashing overhead intersection beacons
  • J-turn modifications on high-speed divided arterials
• Systematic Approach – Signalized Intersections
  • Basic set of signal and sign improvement
  • Change of permitted and protected left-turn phase to protected-only
  • Advance detection control systems
  • Pedestrian countdown signals
  • Separate pedestrian phasing
  • Pedestrian ladder or cross-hatched crosswalk and advanced pedestrian warning signs
• Systematic Approach – Both Stop-Controlled and Signalized Intersections
  • New or upgraded lighting
  • High-friction surface
• Comprehensive Approach
  • Corridor 3E improvements on high-speed arterials with very high frequencies of severe intersection crashes
  • Municipal-wide 3E improvements in municipalities with high frequencies of severe intersection crashes
  • Enforcement-assisted lights
• Traditional Approach
  • Roundabouts

Preparer Notes:

Adjust the above list beforehand to those that the State finds acceptable for deployment based on the results of Step 3 in the Intersection Safety Implementation Plan Process.

Speaker Notes:

Walk through the countermeasures briefly.

slide 45

Countermeasures for Systematic Deployment – Stop-Controlled Intersections

• Basic Set of Sign and Marking Improvements
• Supplemental Enhancements

slide 46

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

• Low-Cost Countermeasures for the Through Approach
  • Doubled-up (left and right), oversize advance intersection warning signs, with street name sign plaques
• Low-Cost Countermeasures for the Stop Approach
  • Doubled-up (left and right), oversize advance "Stop Ahead" intersection warning signs
  • Doubled-up (left and right), oversize STOP signs
  • Installation of a minimum 6 foot wide raised splitter island on the stop approach (if no pavement widening is required)
  • Properly placed stop bar
  • Removal of any foliage or parking that limits sight distance
  • Double arrow warning sign at stem of T-intersections
  • Small, 6 foot splitter island

Speaker Notes:

Refer to the August 2008 FHWA/ITE Toolbox of Countermeasures and Their Potential Effectiveness to Make Intersections Safer (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tools/crf/briefs/interissuebrief.cfm) and expert panel (experienced Federal and State Safety Engineers), CRF estimated at 0.40.

slide 47

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

slide 48

Example of an Installation of a Minimum 6 Foot Wide Raised Splitter Island on the Stop Approach (No Pavement Widening Required)

Speaker Notes:

See FHWA-HRT-08-063, Two Low-Cost Safety Concepts for Two-Way Stop-Controlled Rural Intersections on High-Speed Two-Lane, Two-Way Roadways, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/08063/, for further design and performance information.

slide 49

Stop-Controlled Intersections – Supplemental Enhancements

• Installation of a 6 ft. or greater raised divider on stop approach (installed separately as a supplemental countermeasure)
  • See FHWA-HRT-08-063 for further design and performance information
• Flashing beacons
  • Solar powered LED beacons on advance intersection warning signs and STOP signs, or
  • Overhead intersection beacons
• Dynamic warning sign which advises through traffic that a stopped vehicle is at the intersection and may enter the intersection
• Transverse rumble strips across the stop approach lanes
  • In rural areas where noise is not a concern and running STOP signs is a problem
  • "Stop Ahead" pavement marking legend if noise is a concern

slide 50

Stop-Controlled Intersections – Supplemental Enhancements (continued)

• Dynamic warning sign on the stop approach to advise high-speed approach traffic that a stopped condition is ahead
  • Use when vehicles running the "Stop" sign is a problem
• Extension of the through edge line using short skip pattern
  • May assist drivers to stop at the optimum point
  • Used on intersections with very wide throats in which stopped drivers have difficulty stopping at the correct location
• Reflective stripes on sign posts
  • Use on signs with degraded conspicuity due to sign clutter or competing background features to increase attention to the sign, particularly at night

slides 51-52

Summary of Low-Cost Stop-Controlled Intersection Countermeasures

Speaker Notes:

CRF from the August 2008 FHWA/ITE Toolbox of Countermeasures and Their Potential Effectiveness to Make Intersections Safer (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tools/crf/briefs/interissuebrief.cfm) and expert panel (experienced Federal and State Safety Engineers).

slide 53

Example of a Flashing Solar Powered LED Beacon on an Advance Intersection Warning Sign

Speaker Notes:

Note that a flashing beacon on an advanced warning sign can increase warning to drivers entering the intersection.

slide 54

Example of a Flashing Overhead Intersection Beacon

Speaker Notes:

Note this is another example of using flashing beacons at the intersection itself.

slide 55

Example of an Extension of the Through Edge Line Using Short Skip Pattern

Speaker Notes:

Note that this countermeasure is used at wide intersections where the through lane can not be easily identified.

slide 56

Example of Reflective Stripes on Sign Posts

Speaker Notes:

Note that the safety value of a reflective stripe on a post has not been defined. Intersections with background clutter which may compromise visibility of the sign may be appropriate intersections to deploy the tape.

slide 57

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

Speaker Notes:

Note that traffic on the stop approach can only turn right at the intersection. Provisions for U-turns downstream are needed to accommodate all movements.

slide 58

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

slide 59

Countermeasures for Systematic Deployment – Signalized Intersections

• Basic Set of Signal and Sign Improvements
• Supplemental Enhancements for Special Conditions

slide 60

Signalized Intersections – Basic Set of Signal and Sign Improvements

• Twelve-inch LED lenses on all signal heads
• Back plates on all signal heads (optional reflectorized border)
• A minimum of one traffic signal head per approach lane
• Traffic signal yellow change interval and all red interval timing adjusted to be in accordance with the ITE timing standards
• Elimination of any late night flashing operations

slide 61

Example of 12-inch Heads, One Signal Head per Lane, and Back Plates

slide 62

Traffic Signal Yellow Change Interval

Y = yellow duration in seconds
T = reaction time = 1s
V₈₅ = 85th percentile speed in mi/h
d = deceleration = 10 ft/s²
G = grade in ft/ft
g = acceleration due to gravity = 32.2 ft/s²

Speaker Notes:

This is ITE yellow clearance interval formula. The 85th percentile speed is used to calculate the clearance time.

slide 63

All Red Interval Timing

Source: Tarnoff, Phillip J., Traffic Signal Clearance Intervals, ITE Journal (Washington, DC: April 2004).

slide 64

All Red Interval Timing (continued)

slide 65

Example of Reflectorized Back Plates on All Signal Head (Daylight)

slide 66

Example of Reflectorized Back Plates on All Signal Head (Night)

slide 67

Signalized Intersections – Supplemental Enhancements for Special Conditions

• Change of permitted and protected left-turn phase to protected-only
  • For intersections with high numbers of left turn-opposing flow crashes, 3 or more opposing approach lanes, or high opposing volumes with few acceptable turning gaps
• Advance cross street name signs
  • For high-speed approaches on arterial highways
• Advance left and right "Signal Ahead" warning signs
  • For isolated traffic signals or intersections where the signal heads are not readily visible due to alignment or sight distance obstructions
• Supplemental signal face per approach
  • Where normally placed signal heads may be difficult to identify due to: sight distance limitations, horizontal curvature, or other obstructions
  • For exceptionally wide intersections where a near side signal is needed

slide 68

Signalized Intersections – Supplemental Enhancements for Special Conditions (continued)

• Advance detection control systems
  • At isolated high-speed signalized intersections that have red light running angle crashes
• Signal coordination
  • On high-volume, high-speed arterials with closely spaced traffic signals and frequent mainline stopping due to poor or no signal coordination
• Pedestrian countdown signals
  • At intersections with high pedestrian activity or multiple pedestrian crashes
• Separate pedestrian phasing
  • At intersections with multiple pedestrian-turning vehicle conflicts
• Pedestrian ladder or cross-hatched crosswalk and advanced pedestrian warning signs
  • At intersections with high pedestrian activity or multiple pedestrian crashes

slide 69

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

Speaker Notes:

Note that exclusive (protected) left-turn phases can reduce crashes involving left turns more effectively than protected/permissive phases.

slide 70

Example of Advance Cross Street Name Signs

slide 71

Example of Advance "Signal Ahead" Warning Sign

Speaker Notes:

Note that advanced "signal ahead" warning signs are used when the signal is not readily visible on the approach.

slide 72

Example of Supplemental Signal Face per Approach

Speaker Notes:

Note that supplemental signal heads are used when the cone of vision is not directly in front of the driver on the intersection approach due to a horizontal curve.

slide 73

Example of Advance Detection Control System

Speaker Notes:

Note that supplemental signal heads are used when the cone of vision is not directly in front of the driver on the intersection approach due to a horizontal curve.

slide 74

Example of Signal Coordination

Speaker Notes:

Note that signal coordination, particularly involving closely-spaced intersections, can reduce congestion and improve safety.

slide 75

Example of Pedestrian Countdown Signal

Speaker Notes:

Note that pedestrian countdown signals have been shown to reduce future pedestrian crashes by 25%.

slide 76-78

Summary of Low-Cost Signalized Intersection Countermeasures

slide 79

Lighting Countermeasures at Unlit or Poorly Lit Intersections

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

Speaker Notes:

Note that effective lighting such as that indicated above can reduce night crashes by approximately 50%.

slide 80

Lighting Countermeasures at Unlit or Poorly Lit Intersections

slide 81

Skid Resistance Countermeasures at Intersections with High Rates of Low-Friction Crashes

slide 82

Countermeasures at Stop-Controlled Intersections with High-Speed Approaches

• Lane narrowing using pavement marking and shoulder rumble strips
  • See HRT-08-063, "Two Low-Cost Safety Concepts for Two-Way Intersections on High-Speed Two-Lane, Two-Way Roadways" for further design and performance information
• Lane narrowing using pavement marking and raised pavement markers
  • On approaches where noise issues or bicycle safety concerns associated with rumble strips cannot be addressed
• Peripheral transverse pavement markings
  • See "Peripheral Transverse Pavement Markings for Speed Control" (http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-05172007-135959/unrestricted/KatzPhDDissertation.pdf)

slide 83

Countermeasures at Stop-Controlled Intersections with High-Speed Approaches (continued)

• Dynamic speed warning sign to reduce speed
  • On the through approach warning drivers traveling at speeds above a set threshold to slow down
• Slow pavement markings
  • Highlighted within a gray or black colored box on the pavement
  • Supplemented with advance intersection warning signs with advisory speed plates
  • See HRT-08-063 for further performance information
• High-friction surface
  • Applied to the approaches (approximately 300 feet in advance) and through the intersection

slide 84

Example of Using Pavement Marking and Shoulder and Centerline Rumble Strips

Speaker Notes:

Note that the through lane has been reduced from 12 feet to 9 feet through the intersection, thus reducing speeds through the intersection.

slide 85

Example of Peripheral Transverse Pavement Markings

slide 86-87

Summary of Countermeasures at Stop-Controlled Intersections with High-Speed Approaches

Countermeasure	Crash Reduction Factor	Typical Urban Crash Threshold	Typical Rural Crash Threshold	Additional Intersection Concern	Implementation Cost Range per Intersection
Lane narrowing using pavement marking and shoulder rumble strips	31%	10 speed-related crashes in 5 years	5 speed-related crashes in 5 years	Free of noise and bicycle issues-single through lane	$20,000 to $40,000
Lane narrowing using pavement marking and raised pavement markers	Unknown but probably less than 31%	10 speed-related crashes in 5 years	5 speed-related crashes in 5 years	Single through lane	$5,000 to $10,000
Peripheral Transverse pavement markings	Unknown	10 speed-related crashes in 5 years	5 speed-related crashes in 5 years		$3,000 to $5,000
Dynamic speed warning sign to reduce speed	30%	10 speed-related crashes in five years	5 speed-related crashes in 5 years		$10,000
Slow pavement markings	Unknown	10 speed-related crashes in 5 years	5 speed-related crashes in 5 years		$2,000 to $5,000
High-Friction Surface	25% (All crashes)	10 speed-related crashes in 5 years	5 speed-related crashes in 5 years		$20,00 to $50,000

slide 88

Corridor and Municipal Enforcement Countermeasures

Countermeasure	Crash Reduction Factor	Typical Urban Crash Threshold	Typical Rural Crash Threshold	Additional Intersection Concern	Implementation Cost Range per Intersection
Corridor engineering, education, and enforcement (3E) improvements on high-speed arterials with very high frequencies of severe intersection crashes	25% of corridor intersection fatal and incapacitating injury crashes	10 or more intersection fatalities	10 or more intersection fatalities	Length of corridor should be in the 5-10 mile range	$1,000,000 per corridor + $100,000 education and enforcement annually per corridor
Municipal-wide 3E improvements in municipalities with high frequencies of severe intersection crashes	10% of all intersection crashes	Top 5 or so municipalities with the most intersection fatalities		Consider density of severe crashes per capita	$500,000 to 1,000,000 + $100,000 to 200,000 (dependent on the size of the city) education and enforcement annually per municipality

slide 89

Countermeasures for Education-Enforcement Strategies at Signalized Intersections

• Automated red-light enforcement
• Enforcement-assisted lights

slide 90

Examples of Automated Red-Light Enforcement

slide 91

Example of Enforcement-Assisted Lights

Speaker Notes:

Note that enforcement-assisted lighting improves the efficiency of conventional enforcement for red-light running.

slide 92

Summary of Countermeasures for Education-Enforcement Strategies at Signalized Intersections

slide 93

Traditional Major Countermeasures

• Types
  • Roundabouts
  • Major channelization such as left-turn lanes
• High in effectiveness but high in cost
  • Roundabouts – 72% to 87% reduction in fatalities and injuries
  • Left-turn channelization
    • 13% to 24% for left-turn crashes at signalized intersections
    • 37% to 60% for left-turn crashes at stop-controlled intersections

slide 94

Example of a Rural Roundabout

slide 95

Example of a Suburban Roundabout

slide 96

Roundabouts

• Are roundabouts a first consideration for new intersection design?

Speaker Notes:

Discuss how roundabouts are considered in the design process for new construction.

slide 97

Summary of Traditional Major Countermeasures

slide 98

Module II: Combining Data, Countermeasures, Costs, and Goal

slide 99

Module II Activities

• Estimate total cost-effective improvements by countermeasure, estimated lives saved, and deployment and maintenance costs
• Determine the extent to which identified countermeasures enable you to achieve the goal
• Determine if additional countermeasures are required to meet goal
• Discuss various combinations of countermeasures, costs, and deployment levels to achieve intersection goal

Speaker Notes:

For countermeasures identified for limited deployment, list major reasons the countermeasure is only considered for limited deployment

slide 100

Module II Outcomes

• Estimates of total improvements by countermeasure
  • Lives saved
  • Deployment costs
  • Enforcement and education costs
• Identification of most promising countermeasures to meet State intersection safety goal
• Identification of major barriers limiting deployment of promising countermeasures

slide 101

Systematic Approach – Cost Effectiveness

• Improvements deployed on a systematic basis have to be cost effective
• A B/C analysis is used to make the determination
• Unlike a conventional analysis, the B/C is given or set
• The answer one seeks is the number of targeted crashes per intersection needed to make the improvement cost effective

slide 102

Systematic Approach – Cost Effectiveness (continued)

• Formula
  • T = (Annual Cost x B/C) / (CRF x Average Crash Cost)
• Where
  • T = Threshold – Minimum number of targeted crashes per intersection needed to make the countermeasure cost-effective
  • Annual Cost = Annual cost of the improvement
    • If the improvement involves a construction project, annual cost is the construction cost averaged over the expected life of the project
    • If the improvement is an education or enforcement initiative, annual cost is the annual cost of a full year of enforcement and education
  • B/C = A set B/C ratio used to determine the threshold number of intersection crashes
    • In this case, a B/C value of 2.0 may be used
  • CRF = Estimated crash reduction factor, or effectiveness, of the strategy to reduce targeted crashes, expressed in terms of the percent of targeted crashes reduced
  • Average Crash Cost = Average cost of targeted crashes using the USDOT Fatality and Injury Costs (Treatment of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life in Departmental Analyses, http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/reports/080205.htm) and the number of injury types for the targeted crashes

slide 103

Cost Effectiveness Example for a Signal Update at State Urban Intersections

• Formula
  • T = (Annual Cost x B/C) / (CRF x Average Crash Cost)
• Where
  • T = Threshold
  • Annual Cost = $3,000 ($30,000 averaged over 10 years)
  • B/C = 2.0
  • CRF = 0.30
  • Average Crash Cost = $40,000 (estimated from the distribution of fatalities, injuries, and property damage crashes for State, urban, signalized intersections).
• Result
  • T= (3,000 x 2.0) / (0.30 x 40,000) = 0.50 crashes annually or between 2 and 3 crashes in 5 years

slide 104

Countermeasure Cost, Effectiveness, and Expected Life

slide 105

Hierarchy of Stop-Controlled Intersection Countermeasures

Speaker Notes:

Note that roundabouts are most effective but also most costly.

slide 106

Hierarchy of Signalized Intersection Countermeasures

Speaker Notes:

Note that roundabouts are one of the most effective intersection countermeasures known; however they are also one of the most costly and there can be other issues such as right of way that can complicate their use.

slide 107

Systematic Approach: Identify Promising Countermeasures for State Roads

• List low-cost State highway countermeasures that are acceptable to implement systematically
• For each countermeasure:
  • Review crash distribution data that the countermeasure impacts
  • Select threshold level that improvement will be considered for installation
  • Identify number of intersections which have as much or more than the threshold level of crashes
  • Identify the number of crashes that occurred at these intersections over the analysis period
  • Estimate the number of these intersections where the countermeasure may be able to be applied
  • Estimate the construction costs of improving using countermeasures identified above
  • Identify the type of crash reduced
  • Select a crash reduction factor estimate for the countermeasure and estimate the annual number of crashes reduced
  • Estimate the annual reduction in fatal crashes using the fat/100 crashes values and the estimated annual number of crashes reduced
• Sum up costs, crash reductions, and fatality reductions for each countermeasure
• Discuss a process to validate/invalidate countermeasure application at crash sites identified

Speaker Notes:

Briefly skim through steps to estimate costs, deployment levels, and safety impacts for countermeasures.

slide 108

Example Crash Distribution – State Rural Stop-Controlled Intersections

Preparer Notes:

Replace data with actual distribution in the State.

Speaker Notes:

Note the major breakpoint in the data. In the example, over 50% of the total State, rural stop-controlled intersections occur at 1,546 intersections.

slide 109

Straw Man Template – Systematic Approach Countermeasures

Countermeasure	Threshold Crash Level (Analysis Period)	Number of Statewide Intersections	Number of Targeted Crashes in the Intersections	Estimated Number of Improvements	Construction Costs ($ Million)	Fatalities per 100 Crashes	Annual Targeted Crash Reduction	Annual Estimated Fatality Reduction
Total

Speaker Notes:

Explain that the template is used to develop the straw man and overall statewide impact of applying countermeasures to achieve intersection safety goal.

slide 110

Example of Straw Man – 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	Annual Targeted Crash Reduction3	Annual Estimated Fatality Reduction
Basic Set of Sign and Marking Improvements – Rural	6	1,221	13,722	977	7.82	1.6	732	11.71
Basic Set of Sign and Marking Improvements – Urban	30	474	23,795	379	3.03	0.21	1,269	2.67
Total				1,356	10.85			14.38
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.

Preparer Notes:

Replace data with actual numbers for the State.

Speaker Notes:

Note that this set of calculations is used to estimate impact of systematic deployment of sign and marking enhancements at State stop-controlled intersections. The thresholds should be set based upon the potential level of fatalities that the countermeasure may be expected to reduce, the costs, and the deployment levels. In this case a threshold of 6 crashes in 6 years for rural intersections was selected based upon the probable maximum number of sign and marking improvements that can be implemented within a 5 year period.

slide 111

Systematic Approach: Identify Promising Countermeasures for Local Roads

• Discuss types of countermeasures that local governments may or may not consider for application at local intersections
• Employ the same process as that used for State roads to project costs and crash impacts for those countermeasures locals may find acceptable

Speaker Notes:

Identify differences between installing low-cost countermeasures at local versus State intersections.

slide 112

Comprehensive Approach

• Corridors
• City-wide

Speaker Notes:

Note that the 3E approach is almost always not practical at a single intersection because of the high education and enforcement costs per intersection.

slide 113

Comprehensive Approach: Identify Promising Countermeasures for Corridors

• Use top severe intersection crash corridor listing to identify corridors with significant numbers of fatal and incapacitating injury crashes
• Identify tentative number of corridors State would like to proceed with a 3E corridor intersection safety program
• List corridors and their injuries and fatalities to be considered for implementation
• Estimate cost and impact of corridor component

slide 114

Top Severe Intersection Crash Corridors

Preparer Notes:

Replace data with actual numbers for the State.

Speaker Notes:

Discuss with group.

slide 115

Straw Man Template – Comprehensive Approach Corridor Improvements

Corridor	Annual Incapacitating Injuries	Annual Fatalities	Annual Education and Enforcement Costs	Construction Costs	Crash Reduction Factor	Annual Fatalities Reduced
Total

Speaker Notes:

Note that the estimated CRF for a corridor initiative is 0.25, but relies on an effective education and visible enforcement component.

slide 116

Comprehensive Approach: Identify Promising Countermeasures for Municipal-Wide Enforcement

• Use top municipalities with severe intersection crashes listing by municipality to identify municipalities with large numbers of intersection fatalities and incapacitating injuries
• Identify the municipalities to approach for area-wide intersection enforcement
  • Consider systematic deployment of low-cost, cost-effective countermeasures on an area-wide basis such as enforcement-assisted lighting if automated enforcement is not an acceptable countermeasure
• Compile results and compare to goal

slide 117

Top Municipalities with Severe Intersection Crashes

Preparer Notes:

Change the data to reflect State-specific information.

Speaker Notes:

Discuss the information in the table.

slide 118

Top Municipalities for Pedestrian Crashes

Preparer Notes:

Change the data to reflect State-specific information. List top municipalities by annual or analysis period number of pedestrian intersection crashes.

Speaker Notes:

Discuss the information in the table.

slide 119

Tabulation of Corridor and City 3E Costs and Impacts by Category

Category	Construction Costs	Annual Enforcement and Education Costs	Estimated Annual Reduction of Fatalities
Total

slide 120

Traditional Approach

• Number of intersections to be converted to roundabouts
• Number of intersections for left turn channelization

Speaker Notes:

Note that these countermeasures are applied to intersections with the highest frequencies and rates of severe intersection crashes. They are implemented over the life of the goal (usually 4-5 years).

slide 121-123

Summary Straw Man – Countermeasures, Costs, Lives Saved

Category	Approach	Number of Intersections	Construction Cost ($ Million)	Enforcement, Education and EMS Costs (Annual $ Thousand)	Estimated Annual Fatalities Reduced	Millions Expended Per Annual Life Saved
Basic Set of Sign and Marking Improvements – State Stop-Controlled Intersections	Systematic	1,356	10.85		14.38	0.75
Flashing Solar Powered LED Beacons on Advance Intersection Warning Signs and STOP Signs or Flashing Overhead Intersection Beacons – State Stop-Controlled Intersections	Systematic	69	0.69		0.44	1.56
J-Turn Modifications on High-Speed Divided Arterials – State Rural Stop-Controlled Intersections	Systematic	239	9.55		5.65	1.69
J-Turn Modifications on High-Speed Divided Arterials – State Urban Stop-Controlled Intersections	Systematic	109	4.35		1.31	3.32
Basic Set of Sign and Marking Improvements – Local Stop-Controlled Intersections	Systematic	236	1.89		0.71	2.48
Basic Set of Signal and Sign Improvements – State Signalized Intersections	Systematic	354	10.62		2.31	4.6
Change of Permitted and Protected Left-Turn Phase to Protected Only – State Signalized Intersections	Systematic	536	2.67		1.49	1.79
Advance Detection Control Systems – State Signalized Intersections	Systematic	67	1		0.31	3.22
Basic Set of Signal and Sign Improvements – Local Signalized Intersections	Systematic	263	7.89		2.27	3.47
Change of Permitted and Protected Left-Turn Phase to Protected Only – Local Signalized Intersections	Systematic	387	1.94		1.27	1.52
Pedestrian Improvements – State Urban Intersections	Systematic	55	0.75		0.08	9.37
Pedestrian Improvements – Local Urban Intersections	Systematic	142	4.98		0.81	6.15
New or Upgraded Lighting – State Intersections	Systematic	204	2,74		1.78	1.54
New or Upgraded Lighting – Local Intersections	Systematic	82	1.23		0.42	2.93
High-Friction Surface – State Intersections	Systematic	133	6.65		2.85	2.33
Enforcement-Assisted Lights	Systematic	5 Cities	0.69	0.25	1.72	0.4
Corridor 3E Improvements on High-Speed Arterials with Very High Frequencies of Severe Intersection Crashes	Comprehensive	6 Corridors	6	0.6	2.08	2.88
Municipal-Wide 3E Improvements in Municipalities with High Frequencies of Severe Intersection Crashes	Comprehensive	4 Cities	5	0.5	3.75	1.33
Roundabouts	Traditional	5	4		0.45	8.88
Total		4,237	83.49	1.35	43.98

Preparer Notes:

Develop a straw man for the State similar to the above using actual numbers example to take into the workshop.

Speaker Notes:

Discuss thoroughly at the workshop.

Encourage the group to identify countermeasures that should be emphasized, perhaps by lowering the crash thresholds and those that should be de-emphasized either by eliminating or raising the threshold.

Review the bottom-line in terms of costs and lives saved.

Reach consensus on what the bottom line should be.

Make adjustments to the straw man according to group consensus.

slide 124

Estimated Cumulative Countermeasure Impact Compared to Goal

• Statewide Intersection Goal:
• Sum of Countermeasure Impact:
• Difference:

• If countermeasure impact is greater than goal, should goal be increased or level of implementation be decreased to be compatible to goal?
• If countermeasure impact is less than goal, should level of implementation be increased or goal decreased?

Speaker Notes:

Complete during the workshop based on the summary straw man. Can adjust estimated statewide impact or goal dependent upon aggressiveness of safety program and probable available funding level.

slide 125

Straw Man Changes

• Discussion: What changes to straw man countermeasures, costs, and safety impacts are needed?

Speaker Notes:

Conduct a discussion on changes to the straw man. Changes will be dependent on how aggressive the State wants the safety initiative to be and the level of probable funding.

slide 126

End of Day One

• Questions?
• Next Steps

Speaker Notes:

Review Day 1 topics covered.

Summarize revisions to the straw man.

Indicate that start of Day 2 will involve taking a fresh look at the revised straw man and reaching consensus on the best combinations to achieve the intersection safety goal. Also, Day 2 will look at identifying and addressing the key strategic barriers that have to be broken to achieve successful deployment of the countermeasures.

slide 127-129

Summary Straw Man – Countermeasures, Costs, Lives Saved – Revised

Category	Approach	Number of Intersections	Construction Cost ($ Million)	Enforcement, Education and EMS Costs (Annual $ Thousand)	Estimated Annual Fatalities Reduced	Millions Expended Per Annual Life Saved
Basic Set of Sign and Marking Improvements – State Stop-Controlled Intersections	Systematic	1,356	10.85		14.38	0.75
Flashing Solar Powered LED Beacons on Advance Intersection Warning Signs and STOP Signs or Flashing Overhead Intersection Beacons – State Stop-Controlled Intersections	Systematic	69	0.69		0.44	1.56
J-Turn Modifications on High-Speed Divided Arterials – State Rural Stop-Controlled Intersections	Systematic	239	9.55		5.65	1.69
J-Turn Modifications on High-Speed Divided Arterials – State Urban Stop-Controlled Intersections	Systematic	109	4.35		1.31	3.32
Basic Set of Sign and Marking Improvements – Local Stop-Controlled Intersections	Systematic	236	1.89		0.71	2.48
Basic Set of Signal and Sign Improvements – State Signalized Intersections	Systematic	354	10.62		2.31	4.6
Change of Permitted and Protected Left-Turn Phase to Protected Only – State Signalized Intersections	Systematic	536	2.67		1.49	1.79
Advance Detection Control Systems – State Signalized Intersections	Systematic	67	1		0.31	3.22
Basic Set of Signal and Sign Improvements – Local Signalized Intersections	Systematic	263	7.89		2.27	3.47
Change of Permitted and Protected Left-Turn Phase to Protected Only – Local Signalized Intersections	Systematic	387	1.94		1.27	1.52
Pedestrian Improvements – State Urban Intersections	Systematic	55	0.75		0.08	9.37
Pedestrian Improvements – Local Urban Intersections	Systematic	142	4.98		0.81	6.15
New or Upgraded Lighting – State Intersections	Systematic	204	2,74		1.78	1.54
New or Upgraded Lighting – Local Intersections	Systematic	82	1.23		0.42	2.93
High-Friction Surface – State Intersections	Systematic	133	6.65		2.85	2.33
Enforcement-Assisted Lights	Systematic	5 Cities	0.69	0.25	1.72	0.4
Corridor 3E Improvements on High-Speed Arterials with Very High Frequencies of Severe Intersection Crashes	Comprehensive	6 Corridors	6	0.6	2.08	2.88
Municipal-Wide 3E Improvements in Municipalities with High Frequencies of Severe Intersection Crashes	Comprehensive	4 Cities	5	0.5	3.75	1.33
Roundabouts	Traditional	5	4		0.45	8.88
Total		4,237	83.49	1.35	43.98

Speaker Notes:

Revise the straw man overnight to reflect the input and changes the stakeholders recommended.

Review the revisions with the group.

Conduct an open discussion to determine if this is the right mix.

Adjust the mix to reach group consensus.

slide 130

Reality Check

• Review set of countermeasures and deployment characteristics, costs, and lives saved calculations from Day 1
  • Changes, additions, deletions
• Review selected high-crash intersections to determine if the application of the identified countermeasure makes sense
  • Adjustments needed?
• Reach consensus on a enhanced straw man set of countermeasures

Speaker Notes:

Conduct an open discussion on the revised straw man. Are further adjustments needed either to the mix of countermeasures, deployment levels, costs, or intersection goal?

slide 131

Module III: Strategic Directions

Speaker Notes:

Note that successful implementation of the identified countermeasures to achieve the safety goal will require the State to address several new implementation problems and issues that were not part of the traditional approach.

slide 132

Module III Activities

• Identify top overall issues, concerns, and barriers that may prevent full implementation of each key countermeasure in the final straw man and discuss how to address
• Identify resource and funding requirements and potential institutional and technical issues that need to be addressed
• Identify key decisions and opportunities that need to be made in order to successfully implement the countermeasure

slide 133

Module III Outcomes

• Identification of issues, concerns, and barriers that are preventing widespread implementation of each of the key countermeasures
  • Institutional
  • Technical
  • Budget and Resource
• Actions to overcome these issues, concerns, and barriers and promote widespread implementation of the promising countermeasures

slide 134

Potential Cross-Cutting Barriers

• Funding
• Improvements at local intersections with federal funds
• Education and enforcement initiatives beyond the conventional 402 funding
• Use of countermeasures new or rarely used in the State – process
• Additional barriers – list

Speaker Notes:

Discuss the listed barriers and determine if they are barriers for the State.

Also initiate a discussion to identify additional barriers within the State.

slide 135

Actions to Overcome Issues, Concern, or Barrier and Promote Widespread Implementation

• Barrier – Lack of adequate funding:
• Actions to break through barrier:

Speaker Notes:

For each barrier identified reach consensus on an approach and actions to break through the barrier; start with funding.

slide 136

Actions to Overcome Issues, Concern, or Barrier and Promote Widespread Implementation

• Concern – Implementing countermeasures effectively on local roads:
• Actions to address concern:

Speaker Notes:

Identify all of the issues associated with implementing improvements on local roads and ways to address them.

slide 137

Actions to Overcome Issues, Concern, or Barrier and Promote Widespread Implementation

• Concern – Timely and effective implementing of countermeasures rarely or never used such that risk of adverse consequences or failures are greatly minimized:
• Actions to address concern:

Speaker Notes:

Discuss steps to introduce new or rarely used countermeasures and transition them to wide deployment while reducing the potential for failure along the way.

slide 138

Actions to Overcome Issues, Concern, or Barrier and Promote Widespread Implementation

• Concern – Insufficient 402 funds to implement the education and enforcement countermeasures:
• Actions to address concern:

Speaker Notes:

Discuss potential availability of existing 402 funds and potential other pots of funds that could be used

slide 139

Actions to Overcome Issues, Concern, or Barrier and Promote Widespread Implementation

• Barrier – Other identified barrier:
• Actions to break through barrier:

Speaker Notes:

Take other barriers that the group identified and brainstorm actions to break through each one.

slide 140

Key Countermeasures – Limitations or Restrictions

Once consensus is reached on a final straw man:

• Select key countermeasures (4-8)
• For each key countermeasure identify any major issues, concerns, or barriers that could prevent full implementation
  • List the basis or concern and steps needed to satisfactorily remove
    • Technical issues
    • Potential controversial items associated with the countermeasure; effectiveness
    • Design issues
    • Non-familiarity concerns with the countermeasure
    • Others
  • Determine opportunities to resolve
    • Identify actions and steps to mitigate the concern

Speaker Notes:

Take at least one countermeasure and identify the key steps that have to be taken, by whom, to fully deploy it (dependent on time availability).

slide 141

Key Countermeasures

• Which countermeasures are key to achieving the intersection safety goal?
  • Basic set of sign and marking improvements – stop-controlled intersections
  • J-turn modifications on high-speed divided arterials
  • Basic set of sign and sign improvements – signalized intersections
  • Change of permitted and protected left-turn phase to protected only
  • Advance detection control systems
  • Pedestrian countdown signals
  • Separate pedestrian phasing
  • Pedestrian ladder or cross-hatched crosswalk and advanced pedestrian warning signs
  • New or upgraded lighting – rural stop-controlled intersections
  • Skid resistance surface
  • Enforcement-assisted lights
  • Corridor 3E improvements on high-speed arterials with very high frequencies of severe intersection crashes
  • Municipal-wide 3E improvements in municipalities with high frequencies of severe intersection crashes
  • Roundabouts
  • Left-turn channelization

Speaker Notes:

Revise the above shopping list of countermeasures to that appropriate for the State.

Select the most critical top (4-8) countermeasures that have to be successfully implemented to achieve the intersection goal.

slide 142

Actions to Overcome Issues, Concern, or Barrier and Promote Widespread Implementation of Countermeasure "X"

• Issue, concern, or barrier:
• Actions to break through barrier:

Speaker Notes:

Note that these are similar to cross-cutting barriers but more specific to a given countermeasure.

Take at least the basic set of sign and marking improvements for rural stop-controlled intersections and identify the key barriers that have to be broken and identify actions to break through the barrier.

slide 143

Module IV: Determine the Critical Steps Necessary for Effective Countermeasures Deployment

For each identified countermeasure:

What are the key steps to go from where we are right now to full implementation of the countermeasure?

slide 144

The Road to Deployment: Key Countermeasure "X"

Critical Step	Who Responsible	Any Key Decision(s) Associated with Step	Decision-maker	Required Preparation	Estimated Timeframe to Complete Step

Speaker Notes:

Invite participants to describe the process by which countermeasures can be deployed. This may be done in a visual manner if preferred using a flip chart, but for each step, be sure to capture this information from participants. In the Who Responsible category, it will be important to clarify the decision-makers. This will form the foundation for the Action Plan.

Encourage participants to develop (here or after the workshop) three summary documents as a result of this process that can be a useful reference/appendix to their Module IV Action Plan:

• Summary outline of needed documents.
• Summary of key decisionmakers.
• Summary of stakeholder roles/responsibilities.

slide 145

Example of Key Steps for Basic Set of Sign and Marking Improvements Enhancements on State Highways

• Finalize a package of sign/marking improvements, guidelines, and directions to apply at the intersections (who, when)
• Using photo logs and field reviews, verify that signing and marking improvements are legitimate or illegitimate at the identified intersections; if not legitimate explain why (who, when)
  • May want to develop criteria for placing improvements based upon existing sign and markings installations and other conditions at the site
• List the specific improvements recommended for each intersection (what, who will perform, when)
• Determine how the improvements are to be made (when, who, e.g., maintenance forces or contract)
  • If by maintenance, what information is needed by maintenance to install the improvements?
  • If by contract, what information is needed and what set of intersections will be included in the contract?

Speaker Notes:

Walk through this example to give the group an example set of key steps.

slide 146

Example of Key Steps for Basic Set of Sign and Marking Improvements Enhancements on State Highways (continued)

• If by contract, prepare a contract package to implement these improvements on state roads as a pilot in a few counties or a District (who, when)
• If by maintenance forces, prepare the necessary information for maintenance to install and pilot in a few counties (who, when)
• Pilot state intersection package in one or two regions or several counties (who, when)
  • Optional, but probably necessary and beneficial for countermeasures never or rarely used
• After the pilot phase, make appropriate enhancements to the package and process and implement statewide (who, when)
  • Optional
• Set performance measures for implementing the improvements; monitor progress in accomplishing the above steps (who, when)
• Set performance measures for effectiveness; evaluate the actual effectiveness of the improvements to reduce crashes and compare to that estimated in the plan (who, when)

slide 147

Module IV: Action Items to Implement the Plan

slide 148

Implementation Planning Steps

1. Based on discussion, reach consensus on purpose of the plan and develop first cut action plan outline that fulfills purpose
2. Determine organizations and offices that need to approve implementation plan and provide funding, to implement countermeasures and achieve the goal
3. Develop draft implementation plan
4. Finalize draft implementation plan
5. Gain approval of the plan from designated organizations and offices
6. Modify the plan if necessary to incorporate input from designated organizations and offices
7. Implement the plan

slide 149

Purpose of an Implementation Plan

• Document problem, countermeasures, deployment characteristics, and costs that can reduce fatalities and achieve intersection goal
• Gain upper management support
• Obtain funding levels needed to implement plan
• Establish who has to approve initiative including the funds and what is needed for a decision
• Document key steps and decisions needed to effectively implement plan and achieve goal
• Document process for expanding implementation of countermeasures that are considered limited or restricted
• Establish performance measures and tracking mechanisms to monitor implementation and fatality reductions
• Other

Speaker Notes:

Ask group what they think the purpose of the implementation plan should be.

Walk through the above items and ask the group to identify any items that should be taken off, modified, or added.

slide 150

Module IV: Develop Implementation Plan Outline

slide 151

Implementation Plan Outline – Draft

• Executive Summary
• Background
• The Intersection Safety Goal
  • The Approach
  • Distribution of the State Intersection Fatality Problem
  • Summary of Countermeasures
• Key First Steps
• Implementation
  • Countermeasure Descriptions
  • Key Implementation Steps
• Performance Measures
  • Production Performance Measures
  • Impact Performance Measures
• Performance Standards – Program Effectiveness in Reducing Targeted Crashes
• Summary

Speaker Notes:

Ask group to review the suggested outline and identify any additions, deletions, or modifications

slide 152

Module IV: Action Items to Implement the Plan Performance Measurement Systems

slide 153

What Characterizes Good Performance Measurement?

• It is derived from agency goals and objectives
• It allows decision-makers to tell how well goals and objectives are being met
• It is simple, understandable, logical, and repeatable
• It is not derived solely from what data are available, but instead drives the type and means of data to be collected

Source: Balke, Kevin. "White Paper on Measuring the Effectiveness and Performance of Multi-Agency Traffic Incident Management Programs," September, 2005.

Speaker Notes:

Conduct a brief open discussion with participants on characteristics listed.

Ask group of any additions, deletions, or modifications.

Also ask group if it favors development of performance measures in the plan.

slide 154

Types of Performance Measures

• Measurement of implementation progress
• Measurement of results in terms of achieving goal

Speaker Notes:

Note that there are two types of performance measures (1) countermeasure implementation progress measures against a defined schedule and (2) countermeasure effectiveness progress measured in terms of actual verses predicted crash and fatality reductions.

slide 155

Example Highway Improvements Performance Measures Template – Implementation Progress

Countermeasure "X" applications on State highways

Date	# Intersections to Apply Countermeasure	Targeted # Intersections where Countermeasure is to be Applied	Actual # Intersections where Countermeasure has been Applied

slide 156

Example Highway Improvements Performance Measures Template – Results Performance

Countermeasure "X" crash reductions on State highways

Date	# Intersections where Countermeasure has been Applied	Type of Crashes to be Reduced	Estimated Annual Reduction in Targeted Crashes and Fatalities	Actual Annual Reduction in Targeted Crashes and Fatalities

slide 157

Module V: Next Steps

slide 158

Finalize Draft Implementation Plan

• What organizations need to review the initial draft plan?
• What are the key steps to finalize and gain acceptance of the plan?

Speaker Notes:

Talk about who needs to approve plan before real implementation can begin and what steps have to be taken to gain that approval.

slide 159

Next Steps

• Develop draft implementation plan
• Finalize implementation plan
• Identify organizations and offices that must approve implementation plan
• Gain organization and office approvals of the plan
• Begin implementation

Is anything missing?

Speaker Notes:

Review next steps.

Ask group if anything else should be added.

slide 160

QUESTIONS

Speaker Notes:

Provide a brief summary of the two-day workshop and open the floor for any remaining questions.

slide 153

THANK YOU

U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Office of Safety
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE
Washington, DC 20590