Statewide Traffic Engineers Meeting Rumble Strip(e) June 16, 2011 Simone Ardoin Assistant Road Design Engineer Administrator.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1Operations DivisionApril 29, Pavement Markings Policy, Measures, Targets Policy: Provide appropriate pavement markings to provide presence and.
Advertisements

Highway & Rural Driving
Tracy Lovell, PE A FOCUSED APPROACH TO SAFETY. Provide a Transportation System  Safe  Efficient  Environmentally Sound  Fiscally Responsible.
HFST Council Meeting FHWA Update Frank Julian Federal Highway Administration Resource Center - Safety and Design Team August, ATSSA Mid Year.
Safety Conversation: NLTAPA Conference Michael S. Griffith Director Office of Safety Technologies Federal Highway Administration.
Statewide Traffic Engineers Meeting Baton Rouge, LA June 16, 2011 Terri Monaghan, P.E. Highway Safety Manager Louisiana Department of Transportation &
A Comprehensive Study on Pavement Edge Line Implementation Presented by: Mark J. Morvant, P.E. Associate Director, Research Louisiana Transportation Research.
 Narrow roadway, with no shoulders  Poor pavement condition  AADT 405/150 – Low Traffic Volume  Ideal candidate for P.I.P.
TRAILS AS TRANSPORTATION Design & Construction Michael J. Kubek, P.E. Ohio Department of Transportation, District 12 Production Administrator.
I-10 Exercise. Project Description Current and anticipated congestion due to rapid growth, one lane in each direction will be added to Interstate 10 from.
“ Pavement markings can enhance safety since centerlines have been shown to cut crash frequency by 29% compared to roads without them ” Wisconsin Transportation.
Investigation of the Safety Effects of Edge and Centerline Markings on Narrow, Low-Volume Roads Lance Dougald Ben Cottrell Young-Jun Kweon In-Kyu Lim.
Ohio Department of Transportation Leadership Meeting#1 Jun 12, 2012 Steering Committee Meeting #1 WELCOME Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel Pike and Wok Travel.
Project Development – High Priority Segments 1/24/2011 Rumble StripE Lane Width? Rumble Strip 2 ft. shoulder paving* (up to 6 miles/year**) + rumble stripE.
I-69 Strategic Planning Corridor Study: Fulton To Eddyville, KY Fulton, Hickman, Graves, Marshall, Livingston, Lyon Counties Public Meeting November 15,
US Highway 17 (Center Street) Sidewalk Feasibility Study Town of Pierson, Florida.
S.R. 256 Road Reconstruction Project From City of Austin to S.R. 203 Thursday, February 6, 2014 Austin Elementary School 6:00 p.m.
INTRODUCTION This chapter presents guidance on the application of geometric design criteria to facilities functionally classified as collector roads and.
Chap 4 Cross Section Elements (pp.4-1 – 4-66 ) The following topics (pages) are covered in this lecture: Pavement (p.4-1 – 4-7) Pavement (p.4-1 – 4-7)
1 Channelization and Turn Bays. 2 Island Channelization flush, paved, and delineated with markings – or unpaved and delineated with pavement edge and.
Maintenance and Protection of Traffic (MPT) – HDM Ch 16.
Cross Sections CE 453 Lecture 22 Iowa DOT Design Manual Chapter 3.
INDOT Rumble Striping: A Systemic Safety Measure June 4 th, 2015.
June 2011 Statewide Traffic Engineers Meeting Interstate Guide Sign Upgrade Projects.
Detours – Selection and Design Highways & Engineering Conference March 2, 2006.
Federal Highway Administration University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Shared Roadways Lesson 14 (This picture shows bicyclists not.
University Bike Master Plan. University Policy  Bicycle committee recommends that the current policy for bicycles on sidewalks be changed to create a.
Tender Packages (Consistency with Current Design Bulletins) Basic Knowledge for Roadway and Bridge Projects Seminar for CEA Members Edmonton February 12,
Design Exceptions 101 Ed Fischer, State Traffic-Roadway Engineer Mike Morrow, FHWA Field Operations Engineer Kent R. Belleque, Senior Interchange Engineer.
SECTION 3. Centerline and Edge Line Final Rule DECEMBER 1999.
All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) Program Kevin J. Haas, P.E. Traffic Investigations Engineer, ODOT February 26, 2015.
KYTC Bicycle & Pedestrian Program February 24, 2015.
Road Design.
 Cross section elements consist of the following:  1.Traffic lanes (carriage ways);  2.Shoulders;  3.Medians;  4.Curbs;  5.Side slopes.
Center Line Rumble Stripes Powerpoint presentation for HDMT February 25, (Draft 2/17/10)
TEA, Portland, Maine Travis Koestner Missouri Department of Transportation October 20, 2006 Alternate Paving Update $$ Cost Control at MoDOT $$
SESSION 8 Shoulder Considerations. Objectives Identify shoulder/edge support types Describe benefits of each type Discuss how edge support conditions.
2009 ACEC/ODOT CONFERENCE ODOT’S 1R PROGRAM Liz Hunt, P.E. ODOT Pavement Services Engineer.
1 Road Design Standards for Older Drivers Publication No. FHWA-RD Randy Hulsey Director Douglas County Department of Transportation.
Project Development – High Priority Segments -- ATP 2 10/29/2012 Road Surface? Paved Gravel Segment received Stars for Lane Departure Crash Density & Critical.
C ONSIDERING L ARGE T RUCKS IN THE D EVELOPMENT OF T RAFFIC M ANAGEMENT P LANS Neil Boudreau, MassDOT State Traffic Engineer April 13, 2015.
Timothy E. Barnett, P.E., PTOE State Safety Operations Engineer Alabama Department of Transportation.
Federal Highway Administration University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Lesson 13 (Some of these pictures show bicyclists not wearing.
CAT Realignment and Reconstruction of Rt. 28A Town of Olive Ulster County, New York January 2009.
WELCOME! July 31, 2012 ODOT District July 31, 2012 PURPOSE OF TONIGHT’S MEETING Introduce the project –Reconstruct I-75.
The 2010 Evaluation of Low Cost Safety Improvements Pooled Fund Study Technical Advisory Committee Meeting March 2010 Thomas M. Welch, P.E. State Transportation.
Data Palooza Workshop May 9, 2013 Rabinder Bains, FHWA – Office of Policy and Government Affairs.
County of Fairfax, Virginia Department of Transportation 1 Requirements for Pedestrian Improvements on Road Projects in the Board’s Six Year Priority Plan.
Presentation Outline  Recommendation  Project Background  Public Involvement  Proposed Design  Citizen Comments/Questions  Summary and Recommendation.
Rural, Non-Freeway Rumbles Keeping Drivers on the Road…
Successes in Reducing Highway Fatalities Kathy Harvey, MoDOT State Design Engineer July 16, 2008 Albuquerque, N.M.
Low Cost Safety Improvements Pooled Fund Study Combination Centerline and Edgeline Rumble Strips Dr. Frank Gross, VHB.
Mike McColeman, P.E. Assistant Maintenance Administrator Ohio Department of Transportation Defining Desired Outcomes Defining Desired Outcomes.
Highway Fatalities A National Health Crisis Highway Designers Can Help Turn Around By Anthony Kane Director, Engineering and Technical Services American.
© 2014 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved. North Country Access Improvements Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meeting No. 9 January 19, 2016.
HSIS Annual Meeting October 2011 FHWA Office of Safety Data Support.
Geometric Design: General Concept CE331 Transportation Engineering.
SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (HSIP) GRANTS Presented By: Patrick V. DeChellis Deputy Director Los Angeles County Department.
Complete Streets Training Module 10 – Street Elements: Design & Safety Considerations for Context-Based Solutions.
California’s Experience with HFST 1.  Overview  Challenging Locations  Collision Reduction (State and Local Roads)  Typical Placement and current.
Indiana MUTCD: for Operations & Maintenance Issues/Solutions – Part II.
1 The Highway Safety Manual Predictive Methods. 2 New Highway Safety Manual of 2010 ►Methodology is like that for assessing and assuring the adequacy.
Segment Crash Analysis
From Channelization, Islands and Turning Roadways (p ~ p
Public Information Meeting NW 100th Street Reconstruction Project
HSM Applications to Multilane Rural Highways and Urban Suburban Streets Safety and Operational Effects of Geometric Design Features for Two-Lane Rural.
Pavement Performance Measures In Georgia
Geometric Design: General Concept CE331 Transportation Engineering.
Systematic Identification of High Crash Locations
Walker Street Reconstruction Project 25% Design Public Hearing
Presentation transcript:

Statewide Traffic Engineers Meeting Rumble Strip(e) June 16, 2011 Simone Ardoin Assistant Road Design Engineer Administrator

Terminology Rumble Strip Rumble Stripe  Centerline  Shoulder  Edge line

Existing Policy 12/1997 – Shoulder Rumble Strips to be placed on all 4 lane divided highways with paved shoulders

Centerline Rumble Strip(e) Prior to the 2010 Interim Policy, use was limited to abnormal crash locations

Interim Policy 08/2010 – Centerline Rumble Strips – 2 lane rural roadways – ≥ 11’ Lanes – 55 m.p.h. speed limit – Asphalt pavement age ≤ 10 years – 6” wide, ½” deep, 7” long on 12” centers

District Wide Projects Centerline Rumble Strips All 9 Districts 2159 centerline miles $14.3 million Bid between May 2010 and March 2011

Proposed Rumble Policy Committee of Safety, Traffic, and Design Engineers from DOTD and FHWA Rumble use limited to speeds ≥ 45 mph Consideration of land usage is important, especially when placing rumbles in urbanized areas

Centerline - Two Lane Undivided Paved surface >24’, use 16” wide rumble (encompasses stripes) Paved surface >20’ and ≤24’, use 6” or 7” rumble (fits between stripes)(width to be determined) Paved surface ≤ 20’, use 6” or 7” only when crash history warrants

Centerline - Multi Lane Undivided Use 12” wide rumble (fits between stripes)

Shoulder/Edge Rumble - Two Lane Undivided Paved Shoulder Width ≥ 2’, use 16” wide rumble stripe. (approximately 6” of rumble is in lane and 10” on shoulder) Paved Shoulder Width ≥ 1’ and < 2’, use 6”-7” rumble stripe Paved shoulder width 0’ to < 1’, use 4” rumble stripe Paved surface ≤ 20’, no rumble is to be used

Shoulder/Edge Rumble – Divided Highways Same as Two Lane Undivided for both inside and outside shoulders

ADDITIONAL NOTES Based on above criteria, shoulder ≥ 5’ would accommodate the 4’ area needed behind the rumble for cyclists. If the shoulder is between 2’ and 5’ and the route is determined to be on the suitability map or future goal map for cyclists, the narrower 6”-7” rumble stripe is to be used. The narrower width rumble stripe would maintain sufficient area for cyclists on an existing 4’ shoulder and would also provide some refuge on shoulders < 4’ in width. Gaps in the shoulder rumbles are to be spaced at regular intervals and utilized on all routes, with the exception of Interstate routes, in consideration of any current or future cyclists. If shoulder widths vary between two ranges, use the rumble width for the average shoulder width. Raised Pavement Markers may be used in lieu of ground or formed rumbles. Terminate centerline and shoulder rumbles at guard rail and/or bridge locations. CMF for centerline rumble on a 2 lane undivided highway = 0.94

FURTHER DISCUSSION Transverse Rumbles Define Gap lengths for cyclists, intersecting streets and major driveways Future Research – Ground in Rumble Strips – detriment to pavement structure?

District 04 Project Showing Stripe

District 04 Project

Problems Encountered

Centerline Rumble Strip LA 1019 First Project Completed in LA

THANK YOU Special Thanks to: Traffic Engineering Management Section Highway Safety Section Road Design Section District 62 FHWA