Wildlife Vehicle Collision Reduction Study

1
Wildlife Vehicle Collision Reduction Study
2
Why this Study
3
Goals of the Study

• Advance the understanding of the causes and
  impacts of wildlife vehicle collisions
• Review methods to reduce collisions between motor
  vehicles and wildlife
• Describe solutions to this growing safety problem

Sign and flashing lights, part of an animal
detection warning system
4
Summary of FindingsBy the Numbers

• An estimated one to two million WVCs with large
  animals occur annually in the US.
• More than 98 of WVCs are single vehicle crashes.
  
• The vast majority (as high as 90 in some states)
  of reported WVCs involve deer.

• An estimated 200 people die each year from WVCs.
• 89 of WVCs occur on two-lane roads
• WVCs occur more frequently in the early morning
  (5-9 a.m.) and evening (4 p.m. midnight), when
  animals are more active.

5
Causes and Factors
6
WVCs are increasing compared to Total Crashes
(Data Source GES)
7
Annual WVCs Estimated by Insurance Industry
(Data Source State Farm Insurance)
8
Monthly Distribution of WVCs
0.25
FARS
HSIS
GES
0.2
0.15
Proportion of Collisions
0.1
0.05
0
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
(Data Source FARS, HSIS, GES)
9

• Time-of-Day Distribution

0.12
FARS
GES
HSIS
0.1
0.08
Proportion of Collisions
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Hour of Day
(Data Source FARS, GES, HSIS)
10

• WVCs by Number of Lanes
• On Road

100
WVC
ALL
80
60
Percent of Accidents
40
20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Number of Lanes
(Data Source GES).
11

• Accident Distribution by Posted Speed Limit

0.6
ALL
0.5
WVC
0.4
Proportion of Accidents
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
Speed Limit
(Data Source GES).
12

• Crashes by Average Daily Traffic

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
Proportion of Collisions
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 to
5001-
10,001-
15,001-
20,001-
25,001-
30,001-
gt35,000
5000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
(Data Source HSIS)
ADT
13

• Severity of Injury Distribution for WVCs vs. All
  Crashes

All Collisions
WVCs Only
0.5
0.5
1.7
4.3
0.04
2.3
9.4
None
None
Possible
Possible
Minor
17.6
Minor
Severe
Severe
Fatal
Fatal
68.3
95.4
(Data Source GES).
14

• Age Distribution for All Crashes and WVCs

0.05
0.04
All
WVC
0.03
Proportion of Collisions
0.02
0.01
0
1
11
21
31
41
51
61
71
81
91
Driver Age
(Data Source HSIS).
15

• Estimated Costs of WVC

• Up to 8 billion annually. Injury, property
  damage, crash scene response and investigation.

16
(No Transcript)
17

• Animal Species Involved in Collisions

3.1
0.6
10.3
15.1
DEER
DEER
LIVESTOCK
20.4
MOOSE
OTHER ANIMAL
BEAR
NON-ANIMAL
OTHER SPECIES
14.9
81.2
54.4
Maine
California
(Data Source HSIS).
18
ESA Listed Species Impacted by WVCs

• Mammals
• Bighorn sheep peninsular California population
• Key Deer, San Joaquin Kit Fox, Canada Lynx
• Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit
• Florida Panther, Red Wolf
• Birds
• Audubon's Crested Caracara
• Hawaiian Goose
• Florida Scrub Jay

• Herptiles
• California Tiger Salamander
• Flatwoods Salamander
• Houston Toad
• American Crocodile
• Desert Tortoise
• Gopher Tortoise
• Alabama Red-bellied Turtle
• Bog Turtle, northern population
• Copperbelly Water Snake
• Eastern Indigo Snake

Direct road mortality is the major threat or
among the major threats to survival probability.
19
Mitigation Measures Shown to be Effective

• Wildlife fencing
• Underpasses and overpasses with fencing

20
Wildlife Fencing

• Reported reductions in WVCs 80-99
• Several types of material are used, page-wire or
  cyclone fence material most common
• Electric fencing also possible
• Maintenance is a major concern

Wildlife fencing along US Hwy. 93 on Flathead
Indian Reservation, MT
21
Wildlife Crossing with Fencing

• 87 average
• reduction in WVCs
• Used extensively by a wide array of species
• Associated fencing
• Keeps animals off the road
• Funnels animals towards the crossing

New highway underpass with fencing
22
Promising Mitigation Measures to be Further
Investigated

• Animal detection systems
• Reduce speed by traffic calming or reducing the
  design speed
• Seasonal wildlife warning signs
• Reduce speed by reducing the posted speed limit
• Wildlife crossing guards
• Large, non-standard wildlife warning signs
• Reduce traffic volume on road networks
• In-vehicle warnings roadside animal detection
  system communicating with on-board computers
• In-vehicle warnings on-board animal detectors
• Roadway lighting to increase visibility

23
Promising Mitigation Measures, to be Further
Investigated

• Increasing visibility through vegetation removal
• Stop the use of road salt or consider alternate
  deicers
• Influence plant species in the roadside to limit
  forage values
• Reduce population size through wildlife culling
• Reduce population size through habitat alteration
• Boulder barriers
• Wider more reflective striping along white line
• Expanded medians

24
Animal Detection Systems

• Systems use sensors to detect large animals that
  approach the road
• Warning signals are activated to inform drivers a
  large animal may be on/near the road
• Warning signals are extremely time specific
  short duration
• Two major types area-cover and break-the-beam
  systems
• 82 reduction in WVCs reported in Switzerland

Experimental animal detection system in
Yellowstone NP
25

• Long Tunnels and Long Bridges

• 100 effective in WVC reductions, but very
  expensive
• At least 200-300 hundred feet long, sometimes
  longer
• Allow unhindered animal movements at major
  connectivity points

Long bridge on Arizona SR260
26
Reduce Speed by Traffic Calming, Reducing Design
Speed
Roadkill by Posted Speed Limit in Yellowstone
National Park
20
15
10
Roadkill per Mile
5
0
15
25
35
40
45
55
Posted Speed
(Data Source Gunther et al. 1998).
Speed Bumps Used to Reduce WVCs in Australia
27
Mitigation measure Cost ( /km /yr)) DVC Reduction Benefit ( /km /yr)) Balance ( /km /yr))
Standard warning signs 18 0 0 -18
Anti-fertility treatment 61,702 50 20,970 -40,732
Long bridges 781,250 100 41,940 -739,310
Long tunnels or long bridges 1,500,000 100 41,940 -1,458,060
Animal detection systems (ADS) 31,300 82 34,391 3,091
Population culling 2,508 50 20,970 18,462
Relocation 10,260 50 20,970 10,710
Fence (incl. dig barrier) 3,760 87 36,488 32,728
Fence with gap and crosswalk 5,585 40 16,776 11,191
Fence with gap and ADS 9,930 82 34,391 24,461
Fence with underpasses 5,860 87 36,488 30,628
Fence with overpasses 26,485 87 36,488 10,003
Fence with under- and overpasses 7,510 87 36,488 28,978
28
Ineffective or Questionable Measures to reduce
WVCs

• Standard wildlife warning signs
• Deer reflectors and mirrors
• Audio signals in the right-of-way or deer
  whistles on vehicles
• Olfactory repellants
• Deer flagging models
• Hazing
• Intercept feeding
• Wildlife relocation in order to reduce population
  size
• Anti-fertility treatment in order to reduce
  population size
• Seasonal road closures
• Reflective collars placed on wildlife

29
Next steps

• WVC training manual
• WVC training course