1. Safety and Design National Technical Services Team 1 Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety May 11, 2010 61st Annual Missouri Traffic and Safety Conference

2. 2 Why Intersection Safety?  A small part of overall highway system, but -  In 2008 – 7,772 fatalities related to intersections (21% of Total Highway Fatalities)  Each year more than 3.17 million intersection crashes occur (over 55% of all reported crashes)

3. 3 2008 US National Total Crash Characteristics Crash TypeTotal Crashes Fatal/Injury Crashes Number% % Non Intersection2,638,000 45% 722,680 43% Stop/No control Intersection 984,000 17% 321,520 19% Signalized Intersection 1,182,000 20% 380,511 23% Unclassified1,005,000 17% 240,306 14% Total 5,801,228 100% 1,637,476 100% Source: US DOT: Traffic Safety Facts 2008 Early Edition, A Compilation of motor vehicle crash data from FARS and GES, Table 29, Page 52US DOT: Traffic Safety Facts 2008 Early Edition, A Compilation of motor vehicle crash data from FARS and GES, Table 29, Page 52 55%57%

4. Safety and Design National Technical Services Team 4 2008 Traffic Fatalities (FARS) USMissouri Total Fatalities37,261960 Roadway Departure 19,794 (53%) 616 Intersections7,772 (21%) 162 (17%)

5. 2-5  The Goal of the Missouri Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) – Missouri’s Blueprint to Arrive Alive” is to reduce annual traffic fatalties to 850 by 2012.  This is a 14.3% reduction from 992 fatalities that occurred in 2007.  For Intersections, the goal is a reduction of 28 fatalites. Missouri Focus State Intersection Safety Implementation Plan

6. 2-6 How the Intersection Safety Action Plan was Developed – 2009: 1.6 years of intersection crash information compiled and analyzed 2.“Thresholds” were selected to identify those intersections that produce 40%+ of the intersection crashes 3.Intersection Improvement Measures were selected by Category 4.Intersection Safety Implementation Plan Developed Missouri Focus State Intersection Safety Implementation Plan

7. Safety and Design National Technical Services Team 7 Missouri Focus State Intersection Safety Implementation Plan LocalityTotal Crashes Total Fatalities Fatalities Per 100 Crashes Total Disabling Injuries Disabling Injuries Per 100 Crashes State Roads Rural 30,232 4831.60 3,76912.47 Urban 82,710 1770.21 2,7343.31 Total 112,942 6600.58 6,5035.76 Local Roads Rural 10,154 530.52 5315.23 Urban 139,491 1640.12 3,2752.35 Total 149,645 2170.15 3,8062.54 Table 3. Missouri Intersection Crashes, Disabling Injuries, and Fatalities for Stop-Controlled Intersections – 2002-2007 262,587

8. Safety and Design National Technical Services Team 8 LocalityTotal Crashes Total Fatalities Fatalities Per 100 Crashes Total Disabling Injuries Disabling Injuries Per 100 Crashes State Roads Rural 4,107 170.41 2275.53 Urban 73,913 1240.17 2,4823.36 Total 78,020 1410.18 2,7093.47 Local Roads Rural 676 50.74 111.63 Urban 73,815 1590.22 2,1602.93 Total 74,491 1640.22 2,1712.91 Table 2. Missouri Intersection Crashes, Disabling Injuries, and Fatalities for Signalized Intersections – 2002-2007 Missouri Focus State Intersection Safety Implementation Plan 152,511

9. What Can the Intersection Safety Plan Do for Missouri?  more than 54,000 intersection crashes and 3,080 disabling injuries will be prevented along with at least 270 lives saved over a 10-year period once fully implemented Missouri Focus State Intersection Safety Implementation Plan

10. Safety and Design National Technical Services Team 10 Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety  Rather than focusing on only a few intersections with the highest number of crashes – “Top Down” (typical HSIP program)  Systematic Approach focuses on the intersections with the majority of the crashes – “Bottom Up”

11. Safety and Design National Technical Services Team 11 Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety by the States: Implementation Plans  Identify those intersections that make up 40 to 60% of state total crashes  Improve with low cost signing and marking and signal improvements: warning signs, double up, oversize, markings, Signal head per lane with backplates, etc.  Break down the improvements into a series of annual elements over 5 years

12. 12 Developing and Implementing Intersection Safety Plans  South Carolina  Louisiana  Missouri  Florida  Indiana  Mississippi  Georgia  Pennsylvania  Ohio  Massachusetts  Implementing the “Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety”

13.  Approximately 40 percent of the fatalities occur on State rural highway system at Stop controlled intersections  1,108 intersections identified on state highways (rural and urban) for systematic improvement which have more than 6 crashes in 6 years (rural) or 50 crashes in 6 years (urban) Missouri Focus State Intersection Safety Implementation Plan

14.  Over half of statewide intersection crashes and over ¼ of intersection fatalities occur at local urban intersections  236 intersections identified which have more than 6 crashes in 6 years (rural) or more than 50 crashes in 6 years (urban) Missouri Focus State Intersection Safety Implementation Plan

15. Safety and Design National Technical Services Team 15 Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety Application of low cost counter measures:  Signing and  Marking and  Minor Signal Visibility measures - Rather than high cost geometric reconstruction of intersections

16. Safety and Design National Technical Services Team 16 Intersection Safety Counter- measures

17. Safety and Design National Technical Services Team 17

18. Safety and Design National Technical Services Team 18 Systematic Approach to Improving Intersection Safety Warning Guide Regulatory Right-of-Way  The BASIC Elements are the two guiding principles of BEST Intersection Safety: Clarify and Simplify

19. Safety and Design National Technical Services Team 19 Systematic Approach to Improving Intersection Safety Warning Guide Regulatory Right-of-Way  The BASIC Elements are the two guiding principles of BEST Intersection Safety: Clarify and Simplify

20. Safety and Design National Technical Services Team 20 Clarify and Simplify Example: Warning  Signal Control of 2 rural State Highways

21. Safety and Design National Technical Services Team 21 Guide  Signal Control of 2 rural State Highways Clarify and Simplify Example:

22. Safety and Design National Technical Services Team 22 Guide  Signal Control of 2 rural State Highways Clarify and Simplify Example:

23. Safety and Design National Technical Services Team 23  Signal Control of 2 rural State Highways Lane Use Signing - Overhead Clarify and Simplify Example:

24. Safety and Design National Technical Services Team 24 Signal Head per Lane Supplemental Far Side Signal Head  Signal Control of 2 rural State Highways Clarify and Simplify Example:

25. Intersection Safety Countermeasures – “Low Cost Safety Enhancements for Stop-Controlled and Signalized Intersections” FHWA-SA-09-020 Systematic Approach to Improving Intersection Safety 25

26. “Low Cost Safety Enhancements for Stop- Controlled and Signalized Intersections” FHWA-SA-09- 020 26

27. 27

28. Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety – 1. Signing Warning Guide Regulatory Right-of-Way  The BASIC Elements are the two guiding principles of BEST Intersection Safety: Clarify and Simplify 28

29. Warning Guide Regulatory Right-of-Way  The BASIC Elements are the two guiding principles of BEST Intersection Safety: Clarify and Simplify Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety – 1. Signing 29

30. 1.Warning  All-Way Stop of 2 rural State Highways Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety – 1. Signing 30

31. 2. Enhanced Warning  All-Way Stop of 2 rural State Highways Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety – 1. Signing 31

32.  Enhanced Advance Warning for Right-of-Way Controls - “Doubling-Up” Lexington County, SC Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety – 1. Signing 32

33.  Enhanced Advance Warning Signing for Right-of- Way Controls – “Doubling Up” Doubled-Up Stop Aheads Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety – 1. Signing 33

34. 3. Enhanced Warning  All-Way Stop of 2 rural State Highways Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety – 1. Signing 34

35.  STOP AHEAD Pavement Markings 3. Enhanced Warning Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety – 1. Signing 35

36. 4. Guide  All-Way Stop of 2 rural State Highways Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety – 1. Signing 36

37. 5. Regulatory Right-of-Way  Stop Sign on outside of large right turn radius is too far out of center attention window of driver  All-Way Stop of 2 rural State Highways Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety – 1. Signing 37

38. 4-38 5. Regulatory Right-of-Way  Add Stop Sign on Island to Enhance Visibility CMF = 0.89 + Right Hand Supplementa ry Stop Sign  All-Way Stop of 2 rural State Highways Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety – 1. Signing

39. Right-of-Way Control Signing – B. Visibility  (Relocate Stop to Improve Visibility) Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety – 1. Signing 39

40. Visibility  (Supplemental Stop Sign in Island) *NCHRP 500, Strategy 17.1 E3 – Install Splitter Islands on Minor Road Approaches Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety – 1. Signing 40

41. Emphasis Treatment: Increase Size  Oversized STOP Signs *NCHRP 500, Objective 17.1 E5 – Install larger regulatory signs Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety – 1. Signing 41

42. 6. Regulatory Right-of-Way  “Double Up” Stop Signs Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety – 1. Signing 42

43. 7. STOP Beacon  All-Way Stop of 2 rural State Highways Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety – 1. Signing 43

44. Sight Obstruction Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety – 2. Improve Sight Distance 44

45. Sight Obstruction Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety – 2. Improve Sight Distance 45

46. Move Stop Bar Forward Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety – 2. Improve Sight Distance 46

47. Move Stop Bar Forward Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety – 2. Improve Sight Distance 47

48. - Move Stop Bars Forward Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety – 2. Improve Sight Distance 48

49. 49 -Installation of lighting of rural intersections reduced crashes by 25 to 50% (MN study) - CMF = 0.70 (Elvik & Vaa) - unlighted rural intersection had twice the number of crashes vs. lighted intersections (Iowa CTRE 2008 study) - CRF = 0.65 FHWA-SA- 09-017 NCHRP 500, Strategy 17.1 E2-Improve Visibility of Intersection by Providing Lighting (P) Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety – 3. Intersection Lighting

50. -Iowa CTRE study of 232 rural unsignalized Intersections found the night to day crash ratio for lighted intersections was 0.39 vs. 0.61 for unlighted intersections 50

51. Safety and Design National Technical Services Team CRF = 35% right angle crashes 4 heads for 4 lanes1 head for 1 Rt lane 1 head for 1 Lt lane *NCHRP 500, Strategy 17.2 D2: Improve Visibility of Signals CRF = 28% total crashes Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety – 4. Signal Visibility: 51

52. Safety and Design National Technical Services Team 52 CRF = 35% right angle crashes 2 heads for 2 lanes 1 head for 1 Rt lane 2 head for 2 Lt lanes *NCHRP 500, Strategy 17.2 D2: Improve Visibility of Signals CRF = 28% total crashes Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety – 4. Signal Visibility:

53. Safety and Design National Technical Services Team 53 4 approach lanes 4 signal heads - Place Primary Signal Heads over each Through lane Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety – 4. Signal Visibility: Jackson, MS

54. Safety and Design National Technical Services Team 54 Add Back Plates CRF = 13% total crashes CRF = 50% right angle crashes No Back PlatesBack Plates Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety – 4. Signal Visibility:

55. Safety and Design National Technical Services Team 55  Right Hand Curve  Supplemental Signal on span wire Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety – 4. Signal Visibility: Add Supplemental Signal Head(s)

56. Safety and Design National Technical Services Team 56 1. Update Yellow Clearance Interval All-Red Time Yellow Time *NCHRP 500, Objective 17.2 A2 – Optimize Clearance Intervals NY study: CRF =8% total crashes CRF = 12% injury crashes CRF = 39% ped crashes NY study: 9% decrease in multi- vehicle crashes Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety –5. Signal Clearance Intervals:

57. Safety and Design National Technical Services Team 57 CRF = 12% to 38% of total crashes – 3 studies CRF = 32% right angle crashes *NCHRP 500, Objective 17.2 A4 – Employ Signal Coordination Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety – 6. Signal Coordination:

58. Safety and Design National Technical Services Team 58  Ohio – 90 th Worst Intersection for State – 184 crashes in 3 years Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety –Signal Example:

59. Safety and Design National Technical Services Team 59 Apply two guiding principles for design and operation of an intersection:  Clarify  Simplify Identify Underlying Crash Cause:  AIRS Crash Data identified 85% of Crashes were Red Light Running Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety Signal Example:

60. Safety and Design National Technical Services Team 60  Removed 7 signs including 2 overhead guide signs from overpass  Signal Heads Positioned over Lanes into Driver’s Line of Sight  Lowered signal heads on Mast Arms  Added Supplemental Left Hand Signal  Added Back Plates to Signal Heads  Removed two street light poles Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety Signal Example:

61. Safety and Design National Technical Services Team 61  4 month Period Before – 15 Crashes  12 month Period After - 7 Crashes Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety Signal Example:

62. 62 Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety by the States: Implementation Plans  12 states have developed Implementation Plans for Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety todate  7 states are actively reviewing the identified intersections and conducting engineering field reviews.  7 states have revised their engineering standards to provide for enhanced low cost signing and marking and for signal head per lane with back plates  3 states have let contracts for the first year annual element for systematic improvement

63. Safety and Design National Technical Services Team 63 Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety – Results: South Carolina:  A Before (3 years of crash data) and After Study (3 years of crash data) was performed on the first 91 locations improved in 2003.  Crash Rate Reduction of 54.7%  Severity Index Reduction of 54.5%  A Injury percentage reduction of 34.8%  A Fatality percentage reduction of 75%  Average Benefit/Cost ratio was 385.

64. Safety and Design National Technical Services Team 64 Questions and Discussion: