MICHIGANs INITIATIVES FOR

1
MICHIGANsINITIATIVESFOR

• REDUCING HIGHWAY FATALITIES

2
Design
Courtesy Dean Bowman, Bentley Systems
3
Construction
Courtesy Dean Bowman, Bentley Systems
4
(No Transcript)
5
MDOT Strategic Plan

• Goal Enhance and continue to improve safety
  within our transportation systems and work
  place.
• Objective Continue to develop partnerships to
  reduce fatal crash and injury rates through a
  combination of education, infrastructure
  improvements, enforcement and technology.

6
Michigan Success Story
7
Michigan Success Story
8
Enforcement Michigans Safety Belt
Death Rate 1983-2005
9
Safety Focus and

• Trunkline Safety Program - 70M/Year
• 3M/Year Non-Freeway Rumble Strips
• 14M/Rear Cable Median Barrier
• Local Safety Program - 15.2M/Year
• Local Safety Program - 12.1M
• High Risk Rural Roads - 3.1M
• Dedicated Safety Funding - 85.2M/Year

10
Rural Highway Safety Issues

• Nationally about 60 of fatalities are rural
• Majority of rural crashes are on two-lane roads
  half are off the state highway systems
• Nationally, poor data on the local system
• Inadequate roadways/Random crashes
• Emergency Medical System limitations
• Lack of enforcement personnel

11
High Safety Payoff / Problem Areas

• Alcohol 40 of Fatals
• Speed 30 of Fatals
• Belts 50 of Fatals unbelted
• Motorcycles 10 of Fatals
  double digit growth
• Large Truck involved 12 of Fatals
• Highway Intersections 25 of Fatals
• Highway Lane Departure 40 - 50 of Fatals

12
Michigan Fatal Crashes Trunkline vs. Local
13

Trunkline Program
14
Lane Departure Focus

• Nationally accounts for 40 50 percent of all
  fatalities
• Many factors involved
• Drowsy driving
• Distracted driving (cell phones)
• Weather issues (ice, snow, poor visibility)
• Driver confusion (signing, pavement)

15
Michigan Single Vehicle Lane Departure Fatal
Crashes
16
Lane Departure Focus

• Many countermeasures
• proven effective
• Rumble strips (edge and center line)
• Cable Barrier System
• Quality Pavement Markings
• Vehicle Infrastructure Integration Virtual
  rumble strips based on global positioning
  satellite technology

17
Michigan Experience

• Non-Freeway rumble strips (edge and
  centerline)
• 2008, 2009, 2010 - 3 million per year
• - Anticipate 50 reduction in K and A crashes
• (Targeting 16 Ks and 62 As per year)

18
Rumble Strips Keep Drivers in Their Lane

• Milled Freeway Rumbles
• Standard
• Since 1998
• Proven
• Effective

Drift-off Crashes I-75 (Grayling Gaylord)
1.6 miles North of M-93 to M-32
19
Non-Freeway System

• Statewide Implementation
• Centerline Rumbles
• Shoulder Rumbles
• 3 Year Funding Effort
• 2008 2010
• 3 M per Year
• Estimated 50 Severe Crash Reduction

20
Cable Median Barrier Catch Them When They Leave

• Low Cost Median Protection
• 95 Effective in Capturing Lane Departure
  Vehicles

21
Michigan Experience

• Cable Median Barrier
• - 2008, 2009, 2010- 14 million per year
• - 95 effective in reducing median crossovers
• - Estimated time of return is only 2.9 years!
• (Targeting 13 Ks and 52 As per year over 340
  miles)

22
Freeway Analysis

• Crash Study Conducted
• 2002-2006 Crash Data
• Identified CS Routes with 4 or more
• Correctable Serious Crashes
• 340 Miles
• Crash History
• 66 Fatalities
• 257 Serious Injuries

23
Implementation

• 3 Year Funding Effort
• 2008 2010
• 14 M per Year
• Preliminary TOR 2.90 Years
• Construction Only
• TO DATE
• 15 Projects Programmed
• 3 Under Construction

24
Elderly Drivers
Michigan Drivers Age 65 Fatal Crashes
25
Michigan Demographics

• Over the Age of 65
• In 2000 - 12 of Population
• By 2030 Expected Over 20 of Population
• 17 are Non-Drivers
• 50 of Non-Drivers Stay Home and Do Not
• Access Community Resources, in Part Because
• They Have No Transportation Options

26
Side-by-SideGuide Sign Comparison
Series E Modified
Clear view Font
27
NighttimeSide-by-Side Comparison
Clearview
Series E Modified
28
City of Detroits Street Name Signs
29
Fluorescent Yellow Warning Signs

• Revised standard resulting in
• 65 increase in reflectivity
• Increased daytime visibility (3 to 1)
• Overall improved warning sign system for our
  target audience

30
Standard vs. Fluorescent Yellow
Fluorescent Yellow
High Intensity Yellow
31
Signals DesignBox Span Installation

• MDOTs first choice for signal design October
  2006
• Initial crash information indicates improvement
  on right angle type crashes (Based on Minimal
  Crash Information to date).
• Indications are that box span installations
  reduce red light running
• Drivers hesitant to cross intersection on red
  indication since they can see the indication
  while they are in the intersection
• Slight increase in rear end type crashes that
  could be linked to drivers hesitant to run a red
  light (stopping when others behind would keep
  going)
• Box spans place signal heads in better cone of
  vision for all drivers but especially helpful for
  elderly mobility (angle to see heads is less
  severe)
• Conflicts with overhead utilities can lead to
  difficult installations

32
Box Span InstallationOne Signal Face per Lane
Centered over each lane
33
Pavement Markings

• 6 inch edge lines, 12 inch gore markings
• Enhanced quality inlaid centerline markings
• Rumble strips centerline and shoulder
• Paint in shoulder rumble strips

Wet, night time reflectivity
34
Local Safety Initiative3 Pronged Approach

• Assist Local Agencies and Address Safety Concerns
  through
• Crash Analysis Field Reviews
• Improving RoadSoft Safety Module
• Improving RoadSoft Safety Module

35
To Date

• 44 Counties (1 Township)
• 13 Cities/Villages
• 3 Projects
• Spreading the Safety Word
• Major Improvements in RoadSoft Safety Module

36
Local Agency Safety Initiative

• Five staff positions assigned
• (3 dedicated full time)
• Free engineering and safety audits available to
  local agencies
• Working through CRAM and MML
• Low cost safety improvements

37
High Risk Rural Road (HRRR) Program

• New program with the Federal Highway
  BillSAFTEA-LU
• 3,190,000 of Federal funds available (2009
  program)
• 100 of funds allocated to Local Roadways (0
  allocated to state trunk lines)
• Funding 90 Federal / 10 Local and some
  qualifying projects at 100 Federal Funds

38
High Risk Rural Road(HRRR) Program cont.

• Maximum 400,000 Federal available per project
• Roadway is required to be classified as Rural
  Local, Rural Minor Collector, or Rural Major
  Collector
• Roadway needs to have had 1 A or K crash
  within last 5 years

39
Local Agency Safety (STH) Program

• 12,150,000 of Federal funds available (2009
  program)
• Funding 80 Federal / 20 Local
• Maximum 400,000 Federal available per project

40
Funding Targets

• 10,000,000 for projects correcting Type A
  K crashes
• 1,000,000 for guardrail upgrades and clear zone
  improvements
• 200,000 for shoulder and centerline rumble
  strips projects

41
5 Report Projects

• P.E. Eligible for STH funding (up to 10 of
  construction costs)
• Must be on 2006 or 2007 lists
• Referencehttp//safety.fhwa.dot.gov/fivepercent/
  index.htm

42
Intersection Stop Control

• Flashing Beacons
• Traffic Signals
• Rumble Strips

43
(No Transcript)
44
(No Transcript)
45
(No Transcript)
46
Add/Improve permanent signing delineation of

• Upgrade to type IX sheeting
• Oversized signs
• Flashing warning beacons
• Stop Stop Ahead signs
• Chevrons
• Install delineators
• Install sign post delineators lollipops

47
Upgrade to type IX sheeting
48
Curve Prior toLocal Safety Project
49
Curve After Safety ProjectOversized signs
50
Solar Flashers
51
After with Stop Ahead Signs
52
Stop Sign Ahead with Post Delineators - Lollipops
53
Stop Signs with Post Delineators - Lollipops
54
Local Safety Program ResultsBefore and After
Study

• The fifty-seven projects constructed over the two
  years resulted in an annual average crash
  reduction of 20.0 (835.7 before and 668.5
  after). This is a reduction of approximately
  2.9 crashes per location per year.
• Total annual average injuries for the fifty-seven
  project group decreased from 266.3 to 212.3
  (20.3 reduction), slightly less than 1 injury
  per location per year.