U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000
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
|
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 |
||||||
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
SI (Modern Metric) Conversion Factors
Chapter 2. Detailed Quantitative
Chapter 3. Simpler Quantitative Evaluation
Chapter 4. Qualitative Evaluations
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
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
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 > |