Data Concerns Related to Defining and Solving the Deer-Vehicle Crash Problem Traffic Records Forum Nashville, TN July 25-29, 2004 Keith K. Knapp UW-Madison Deer-Vehicle Crash Information Clearinghouse

PRESENTATION CONTENT The DVC Information Clearinghouse “What We Think We Know”  The Problem  The Solutions Some DVC Data Concerns: It’s Not Just DOT Crash Data Suggestions for the Future

THE DVCIC National DVC Reduction Working Group Conference (2000) WisDOT Funded DVCIC: July 2001 Regional Participation: IA, IL, MI, MN, and WI DOT and DNR Technical Advisory Committee and Board Members

DVCIC OBJECTIVES Compile Current Knowledge Develop/Promote Standard Research Investigate Data Collection/Estimates Collect, Analyze, Evaluate, and Summarize Regional DVC-Related Data Disseminate and Distribute Information Long Term - Contribute to a Decrease

PUT MORE SIMPLY… Clearly Define the Significance of the Problem - Safety and Cost Distribute What we Really Know and Don’t Know about Countermeasures (in an Unbiased Manner) Help Folks make More Informed Decisions with Respect to Countermeasure Installation/Evaluation More Effective Use of Limited Funds

NOT A NEW PROBLEM… 1929

…BUT IT IS AN ONGOING ONE 2002

“THE PROBLEM” - NATIONAL National “DVC Estimates”  Maybe Around 1.5 Million  Maybe More than $1 Billion  Basis is Murky Estimated that Reported DVCs Only Represent About Half of Those that Occur

“THE PROBLEM” - REGIONAL Notes: 1) ) Deer or Animal (IA) Crashes. 3) Reported versus Estimated. 4) Min. Reporting Thresholds Differ: $400, $500, & $1,000. 5) $1,700/Crash Vehicle Damage.

“THE PROBLEM” - WISCONSIN One of Six or Seven Crashes About 20,000/year Reported Some Counties > 45 or 50% More than 40,000/year Carcasses Removed

THE “SOLUTIONS”- MITIGATION Noise/Sound/Whistle Devices Reflectors/Mirrors Deer-Flagging Models Deer Crossing Signs Intercept Feeding Speed Limit Reduction Highway Lighting Repellants Deicing Salt Alternatives In-Vehicle Technologies Roadside Vegetation Management Hunting or Herd Reduction Exclusionary Fence Roadway Development Decisions Public Information and Education Wildlife Crossings

MITIGATION & CRASH REDUCTION  Deer Whistles  Roadside Reflectors/Mirrors  Speed Limit Reduction  Signs and Sign Technology  Hunting and Herd Reduction  Roadside Vegetation Management  In-Vehicle Technologies  Deicing Salt Alternatives  Public Information and Education  Roadway Maintenance, Design, and Planning Policies 10 of 16 Measures Used but Rarely/Never Been Studied or with Conflicting Results:

…CRASH REDUCTION (Cont.) 2 of 16 Measures Used with Generally Positive Results:  Exclusionary Fencing  Wildlife Crossings 4 of 16 Measures Not Generally Used but Rarely Studied:  Roadway Lighting  Deer-Flagging Models  Intercept Feeding  Repellents (on Roadways)

GENERAL “SOLUTION” FINDINGS AASHTO Safety Plan Strategy Categories - All “Tried” or “Experimental”, but none “Proven” Many “References”: Some Helpful and Others Detrimental Definitive Studies of Countermeasure DVC-Reduction Effectiveness are Non-Existent for the Most Part

…FINDINGS (CONT.) Need to Match/Focus Potential Mitigation Measure(s) to Roadway Locations - Define the Problem Need to More Properly Evaluate Existing/New Measures - Solve the Problem Properly Defined Data is Vital to the Activities Above

SOME DVC DATA CONCERNS Typical PDO Data Characteristics  Under-Reporting  Specificity of Location  Different Minimum Reporting Thresholds Relevant Database Locations  Intra-agency  Interagency  Interdisciplinary  Public, Private, and Non-Profit  State, County, and Local [Federal]

…DVC DATA CONCERNS (CONT.) Typical DVC-Related Databases and Locations  Reported DVCs: DOT, State Patrol, DPS  Self-Reported DVCs: DOT State Patrol, DPS  Volume/Travel Estimates: DOT, Local Gov’t  Carcass Removal Permits: DNR, Possibly DOT  Carcass Removals: DNR, Contractors, Local/State Maintenance Crews  Insurance Reports (Comprehensive): Private  Internal Trucking Crash Records: Private  Other Factors - Land Use/Cover, Deer Pop., Human Pop.: Multiple Locations

…DVC DATA CONCERNS (CONT.) Poor Documentation of Data/Terminology in “DVC” Summaries and Research For Example in Past Reports:  “DVC” = “Roadkill” Observed, Roadside Permit Numbers, and Officially Reported Crashes  These are NOT Equal in Magnitude or Location Possible that “Best” Data is not Generally Collected/Recorded by Location Lack of Species-Specific Crash Input

CONFOUNDING IMPACTS Definition of Overall Problem and Problem Locations Spatial and Temporal Combinations and Comparisons Understandability and Usefulness of DVC Safety Research Results The “What” and “Where” Questions of Implementation

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE Continue to Encourage Activities that Increase Reporting and Locational Accuracy Properly Define Available DVC-Related Databases Statewide, Regionally, and Nationally Properly Document Magnitude, Trends, and/or Location of DVC Problem Statewide, Regionally, and/or Nationally

SUGGESTIONS…(CONT.) Encourage Quality Control of Standard DVC Countermeasure Research and its Documentation Pilot Study Collection/Recording of Roadside Carcass Locations - Compare to Reported DVCs Encourage DVC Countermeasure Implementation and Monitoring by Multidisciplinary Teams

Questions and Discussion Website: