USA Banner
  U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Here's how you knowOfficial US Government Icon
              **Official websites use .gov**A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
            Secure Site Icon
              **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                  A **lock** ( A locked padlock ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. 
 U.S. Department of Transportation Icon United States Department of Transportation
 Search DOT
            Search
                    About FHWAFHWA Organization
                Headquarters Offices
                Field Offices
                Strategic Plan
                Business Opportunities
                Staff Directories
                Careers
                Highway History
                Contact UsProgramsAcquisition Management
                Civil Rights
                Federal Lands Highway
                Infrastructure
                Innovative Program Delivery
                Operations
                Planning, Environment, and Realty
                Policy
                Research, Development, and Technology
                Safety
                Browse by TopicsResourcesCore Highway Topics
                Federal Aid Essentials
                Automation
                Complete Streets
                Laws and Regulations
                Policy & Guidance Center
                Section 508
                Publications and Statistics
                Professional Development
                National Highway Institute
                Resource Center
                Accessibility Resource Library
                FHWA Research LibraryNewsroomPress Releases
                Speeches & Testimony
                Photos
                Videos
                Media ContactsMenu FHWA Highway Safety Programs Home
                        Road Safety Audit Case Studies: Using IHSDM in the RSA Process


            
            In This Section
        Safety Data Analysis & Tools
                Crash Modification Factor Clearinghouse
                Roadway Safety Data Program (RSDP)
                                Overview
                Data Driven Safety Analysis
                Data Management
                Safety Data Analysis Tools
                Local Data Integration
                Technical Assistance
                Case Studies
                Training
                Resources
                Highway Safety Manual (HSM)
                Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE) and FDEs
                Systemic
                                Overview
                Why Systemic
                Training
                Resources
                Road Safety Audits
                                Overview
                Benefits
                Legal Issues
                Steps of Conduct
                Training
                Resources
                
                APPENDIX A: RSA CASE STUDY DETAILS: RSA No. 2 – US Highway 2, Kalispell, Montana
**Project Overview**Project Location:
			A 26.1 mile segment of the US Highway 2 corridor located west of Kalispell, Montana.Project Environment:
			RuralProject Design Stage:
			Existing roadwayProject Owner(s):
			Montana Department of Transportation**RSA Overview**Date of RSA:
			June 10-12, 2013RSA Stage(s):
			RSA of existing roadsRSA Team:
			Representatives from the Federal Highway Administration , Flathead County, Montana Highway Patrol, Montana Department of Transportation, and Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.**IHSDM Overview**Information Provided by Roadway Owner:
			As-built construction plans.
			Elevation data from MDT.

			Traffic data from MDT.
			Crash data from MDT.IHSDM Modules Utilized:
			Policy Review Module: Length of Curve and Radius of Curve.
			Design Consistency Module.
			Crash Prediction Module.RSA No. 2 – Project Background

Figure 10: Aerial Photo of US Highway 2, Kalispell, Montana RSA. The portion of Highway 2 is defined by a purple line.

**Figure 10: US Highway 2, Kalispell, Montana RSA Location (Purple).**

In 2009, at the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) Comprehensive Highway Safety Plan (CHSP) Annual Meeting, traffic safety stakeholders agreed that the long-range highway safety goal for Montana is to cut the number of fatalities and serious/incapacitating injuries in half by 2030 from 1,704 fatalities and serious injuries in 2007 to 852 in 2030. One
of the strategies established by MDT, through the High Crash Corridor/High Crash Location Emphasis Area in the CHSP, is to conduct two Corridor Safety Audits (CSAs) on high crash corridors each year.

The segment of US Highway 2, from milepost (MP) 93.5 to MP 119.6 was identified by MDT as a High Crash Corridor. This corridor had a higher crash rate and crash severity index, which is the ratio of the sum of the level of crash severity to the total number of crashes, than the statewide rural National Highway System (NHS) average. Between 2007 and 2011, the US Highway 2 corridor had a crash rate of 1.99 crashes per million vehicles miles of travel, compared to the 1.01 crashes per million vehicles miles of travel statewide rural average. The severity index was 2.42 for US Highway 2 and 2.05 for the statewide rural average.

A 26.1 mile segment of the US Highway 2 corridor, shown in Figure 10, was selected for the RSA. The environment varies from rural areas, to smaller residential areas, and more dense residential areas with a primary school located directly off of US Highway 2 near MP 115. The roadside characteristics vary as well, with much of the study area having steep slopes or fixed objects including trees and rocks. Commercial vehicles, particularly quarry and logging trucks, also use this route heavily and a weigh station within the study area is scheduled to be reopened.

Within the assessment area, US Highway 2 is a two-way, two-lane road consisting of a 12 foot wide travel lane and shoulders varying in width. In the IHSDM study area, from MP 99.34 – 109 as shown in Figure 9, the shoulders were approximately one foot. There is one intersection with a flashing beacon and there are no signalized intersections along this corridor. There are numerous unsignalized intersections and driveways within the study area.

The posted speed limit on US Highway 2 ranges from 60 to 70 miles per hour (mph) with a 45 mph school zone within the study area.

Figure 11: Graphic depicting the RSA and IHSDM study area in Kalispell, Montana.  Fatal and incapacitating injuries are mapped on the US 2 corridor between mileposts 94 and 119.  The IHSDM Analysis Area is circled in red and is located between mileposts 99.34 and 109.

**Figure 11: RSA and IHSDM Analysis Area.**

RSA No. 2 – Use of IHSDM

While the RSA encompassed a larger area, IHSDM was used for an approximately 9.5 mile section of US Highway 2, from MP 99.34 to MP 109, where crash rates were among the highest on the corridor and where roadway geometry was suspected to play a significant factor in those crashes (Figure 11).

There were three IHSDM modules that were utilized prior to the RSA and used to identify locations of interest for this RSA.

The IHSDM analysis produced output tables and graphs that illustrate locations where AASHTO policy values for horizontal curve length and radius were not met, the 85th percentile speed profile for the corridor traveling in each direction (and any accompanying "flagged" elements), and projected crashes along the alignment. The output for these analyses can be summarized as follows:

***PRM***

Length of Curve: Five locations did not meet the 2011 AASHTO minimum criteria for length of curve.
	Radius of Curve: One location did not meet the 2011 AASHTO minimum criteria for radius of curve.***DCM***

The output from this module showed that from an approach tangent to its succeeding horizontal curve, several locations were flagged for significant reduction in estimated 85th percentile speeds:

Four locations had a speed differential of adjacent design elements that was between six (6) and 12 mph (yellow flag).
	One location had a speed differential of adjacent design elements that was greater than 12 mph (red flag).Figure 12: Photo of Eastbound view of US 2 depicting a series of sharp curves.

**Figure 12: Eastbound on US Highway 2 in Kalispell, Montana, at the curve near MP 108.9.**

This location was identified by PRM as a curve that did not meet the minimum criteria for lengths and DCM, where it was flagged for a critical reduction in the estimated 85th percentile speed from an approach tangent to its succeeding horizontal curve.

***CPM***

Five years of site-specific crash history (January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2012) was used (102 reported crashes) for the CPM analysis with the analysis period being 2013-2018, which is recommended for locations which have similar characteristics in the "before" and "after" analysis periods. The results were 86.49 total crashes for the analysis period with a crash rate of 1.79 crashes/mi/ yr. The sections of the roadway with the highest expected crash rates were on or adjacent to curve segments of the roadway.

A summary of the IHSDM graphs is shown in Figure 13. The output from the various modules was compared through tables and maps to help define the order of magnitude of risk for different locations. Figure 14 is an example of the mapped results.

Figure 13: Graph showing a summary of US Highway 2 IHSDM output. The summary highlights includes a profile, vertical curves, horizontal curves radius, degree of curve, required sight distance (ft), available sight distance (ft), homogenous segment, horizontal design element, desired speed (mph), V85 speed (mph), and design speed (mph).

**Figure 13: Summary of US Highway 2 IHSDM Graphical Output.**

Figure 14: GIS based map showing a section of US Highway 2 with crashes from 2007 to 2012 and IHSDM module results. A PRM radius is shown in green. CPM data is show with callouts in red. DCM data is shown in purple. The legend describes symbols with the different crash types: rollovers, lost control, wild animals, and right angle. The IHSDM output colors are red: Expected Crash Rate (Ranking #), green: Radius Differential (Ranking #), and purple: Speed Differential (Ranking #). The US Highway 2 is delineated in a light blue in the background where the different crash symbols are overlaid.

**Figure 14: Section of US Highway 2 with Crashes (2007-2012) and IHSDM Module Results.**

RSA No. 2 – Key RSA Findings and Suggestions

The RSA team reviewed the US Highway 2 corridor utilizing recent crash data, local and RSA team inputs, and the interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM). IHSDM was used to help select sites for detailed review and to help identify priority areas where improvements should be considered. The results of IHSDM identified the following locations as critical "spot" locations along the corridor:

Rustic/Gopher Road Intersection.
	Kila Road (near MP 112) Intersection.
	Batavia Lane Intersection.
	West Valley Drive Intersection.
	Dern/Springcreek Intersection.A summary of the key safety issues at the hotspot locations and suggested mitigation actions for the US Highway 2 RSA is provided in Table 5.

**Table 5: US Highway 2, Kalispell, Montana: Key hotspot safety issues and mitigating actions.**

Selected Safety Issue
			Suggested Action**Change in surrounding land use**
			There are areas that change from rural to more developed without warning. Drivers traveling at elevated speeds on US Highway 2 may not expect the vehicle speed differential associated with vehicles entering from driveways, wide access points, and intersections.
			Photo of the eastbound view of intersection and parking/access locations just after the horizontal curve. A store is seen on the left hand side with some cars parked in a gravel covered parking lot. Another building across the street is on the right hand side in the distance with some trees and mountains in the distance.

			**Eastbound view of intersection and parking/access locations just after horizontal curve. Motorists may not expect vehicles entering the roadway given the rural nature.**
			**Intermediate Range:**
			Consider installing advanced intersection warning signing with street name signage. **Long Range:**
			Consider implementing access restrictions at wide access points to define desired traffic movements.**Student Crossing**
			At a crossing near a school on US Highway 2, vehicle speeds were reported to be high, near misses between vehicles and the crossing guard were reported, and vehicles parking on the street near a gas station were blocking the view of students in an adjacent crosswalk.
			Photo of the eastbound view from the intersection of US Highway 2 and Batavia Lane. There are overhead utility lines on the left hand side. In the foreground is a small piece of blacktop pavement that has tire tracks shown where cars pull off the road.
			 

			**Eastbound view from intersection of US Highway 2 and Batavia Lane. Gas station access is to the left. Vehicles pull into the gas station to drop their kids off for school, requiring the students to cross Batavia to access the school. Vehicles park along the front of the intersection, potentially obstructing the view of students crossing Batavia in the crosswalk.**
			**Short Range:**
			Implement an educational campaign targeting speeds in the school zone.
			Work with the MDT Community Transportation Enhancement Program (CTEP)/Transportation Alternatives (TA) Program to investigate the possibility of infrastructure improvements or educational programs.
			Evaluate the 45 mph speed zone location. Evaluate driver speed feedback signs.
			Increased speed and crosswalk enforcement.
			Install no parking signs in front of the gas station and stripe that portion of roadway as right turn lane/tapered right turn lane.**Long Range:**
			Investigate potential intersection modifications to reduce speed of right turning traffic onto Batavia.
			Investigate a grade separated pedestrian crossing of US Highway 2.**Intersection proximity**
			One location has two intersections in close proximity, potentially causing confusion among drivers performing turning movements or entering the roadway.
			**Short Range:**
			Consider options to enhance warning or to provide advance warning.
			Enhance pavement markings to provide positive guidance to drivers regarding the multiple intersections, clarify traffic priority, and enhance intersection operation.
			Conduct a traffic signal warrant study. Evaluate the options of a roundabout and/or dedicated turn lanes.**Intersection located on a combination horizontal and crest vertical curve**
			The limited sight distance in combination with high speeds along US Highway 2 increase the crash risk at the intersection with Dern/Springcreek Road.
			Photo of the westbound view of US Highway 2 from Springcreek Road. There are signal heads in the top left corner of the photo and a vehicle stopped at the intersection with a traffic cone in fluorescent orange shown in front of it. 3 vehicles are driving away in the image. A guardrail is seen on the left side with trees and mountains in the background.
			 

			**Westbound view of US Highway 2 from Springcreek Road. The horizontal and vertical curve limits the sight distance on US Highway 2, so drivers may not see vehicles entering/crossing from Dern/ Springcreek Roads.**

			Photo of a northbound view on Dern road approaching the intersection with Highway 2. The intersection is on the crest of a steep vertical curve. On the hill approaching the intersection there are guardrails on each side. A bicycle warning sign is placed approaching the intersection and a stop sign with flashing beacons on a span wire are located at the intersection. Utility lines and poles are also seen crossing the intersection.
			 

			**Northbound on Dern Road, approaching the intersection with US Highway 2. The intersection is on the crest of a vertical curve limiting sight distance.**
			**Intermediate Range:**
			Investigate Intelligent transport systems (ITS) options to provide additional information to mainline drivers of conflicting traffic.**Long Range:**
			Evaluate a more robust improvement leveraging Federal-aid funds such as Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds to reconstruct the intersection.The RSA team used the IHSDM output to evaluate several of the critical roadway segments and curves on the corridor and identify systemic issues associated with these locations. The following is a summary of the critical segments and curves identified through IHSDM:

Section with horizontal curve near Pleasant Valley Road intersection.
	Horizontal curve near MP 102.4.
	Horizontal curve near MP 103.
	Section between MP 103.5 and MP 105.
	Section between MP 106 and MP 107.5.
	Horizontal curve near MP 108.9.A summary of the key safety issues and suggested mitigation actions developed by the RSA team for the road segments/curves on US Highway 2 is provided in Table 6.

**Table 6: US Highway 2, Kalispell, Montana: Key systemic safety issues and mitigating actions.**

Selected Safety Issue
			Suggested Action**Horizontal curve crashes**
			There were a number of crashes occurring along horizontal curves.
			Photo of a horizontal curve near milepost 107 on US Highway 2. A rock face is on the left side, immediately adjacent to the inside curve.  A gravel pull off is located on the outside of the curve, opposite the rock face.  Just past the pull off, guardrail is located adjacent to the road.

			**Horizontal curve near MP 107. An example of one of the many horizontal curves in the study area, the curve has limited sight distance, a pull-out located within the curve, and lacks signage.**
			**Short Range:**
			Implement a systemic approach to marking curves, such as installing chevrons or chevrons of increasing size, based on relevant criteria (e.g., radius, length, crashes, grade).**Short\Intermediate Range:**
			Implement shoulder widening on the outside of select curves meeting relevant criteria (e.g., x crashes, y radius).
			Photo of a horizontal curved road the typical size and placement of chevrons.

			Photo of a horizontal curved road with modified size and placement of chevrons.

			**The upper photo is typical chevron size and placement. The lower photo demonstrates use of increasing chevrons, which include a slightly modified placement and placement so that they increase in size through the curve. (Source: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute)**
			**Intermediate/Long Range:**
			Remove conflicts on curves with limited sight distance (e.g., pull-off areas).
			Conduct curve monitoring through Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and consideration of additional enhancements (e.g., dynamic curve warning signs).**Speed**
			Speed was a factor in 15 percent of the crashes along the corridor. Speed differential is also a concern along the corridor. The RSA team observed heavy vehicles traveling at high speeds and passing slower vehicles. Also, with the complex roadway geometry, animal presence, and lack of street lights, unfamiliar drivers may not be comfortable driving the speed limit. This discrepancy in speeds can result in a violation of driver expectancy.
			Photo of the southbound view on Springcreek Road approaching the intersection of US Highway 2. US Highway 2 is uncontrolled and Spring Creek Road is stop controlled. Skid marks are present approaching the stop sign. Construction workers in fluorescent vests are walking along the left hand side of the road. One vehicle is approaching the camera and three vehicles are faced away from the camera stopped at the stoplight. Span wire flashing beacons are located above the intersection.
			 

			**Southbound on Springcreek Road, approaching intersection with US Highway 2, the RSA Team observed multiple sets of skid marks starting near the top of the vertical curve and approaching the intersection. The skid marks may be an indication that drivers may not realize they are approaching the intersection at high speeds, or that they were not expecting a vehicle queue at the stop sign.**
			**Short Range:**
			Implement the state single vehicle run-off-the-road campaign. The intent of this project
			is to develop statewide and/or regional media campaigns educating motorists on road departure crashes.**Short/Long Range:**
			Investigate speed reduction measures such as mobile or permanent speed feedback signs in critical locations. Consider those measures that provide a shared benefit. For example, increasing chevrons are potential measure providing increased horizontal curve warning, but they also help to reduce speeds (see horizontal curve crash section, 3.2.1.1)**Intermediate Range:**
			Investigate the difference between design speed versus 85th percentile speed and enforcement speed throughout the corridor.
			There is currently a proposed research safety project to investigate the safety impacts of speed differential between commercial and passenger vehicles.**Road Departure/Single vehicle run-off-the-road (SVROR) crashes**
			Thirty five percent of crashes were road departure/SVROR crashes (including overturn crashes, fixed object, and lost control crashes).
			**Short Range:**
			Utilize the district wide curve signing project.**Short\Intermediate Range:**
			Implement corridor-wide delineation and signage upgrades. Potentially delineate the higher volume private approaches. Implement the statewide single vehicle run-off-the-road departure media campaign.**Intersection Related Crashes**
			Many of the crash locations were at intersections or were intersection-related (such as right angle and rear end crashes). A plot of crash frequency indicated peaks at intersections.
			**Short Range:**
			Implement corridor wide advanced intersection warning with street name signs.**Short\Intermediate Range:**
			Implement corridor wide delineation and signage upgrades. Potentially delineate the higher volume private approaches.**Location of Pull-outs**
			Many of the pull-outs were in locations with limited sight distance.
			Photo of a view eastbound on US Highway 2 showing the curve near milepost 107. There is a guardrail on the right hand side of the photo and a steep hill on the left side of the road.  Mountains and trees are in the background.
			 

			**Eastbound on US Highway 2 showing the curve near RP 107 and gap in guardrail created by the presence of pull-out. Drivers that use the pull-out have limited sight distance making it difficult to pull-out and gain speed so they are not overtaken by faster vehicles driving the 70 mph speed limit.**
			**Short Range:**
			Evaluate pullout locations and remove/relocate as appropriate**Skewed intersections**
			A significant number of intersections were skewed. The skew allows for higher speed interactions from some directions and much lower speed interactions from other directions. Also limits driver's ability to see traffic in all directions as well as increases exposure for vehicles crossing the mainline.
			Photo of a westbound view on US Highway 2 approaching Rustic/Gopher Road. The road on the left intersects perpendicular to US Highway 2 while the intersecting road on the right has a skewed approach.
			 

			**Westbound on US Highway 2, approaching Rustic/Gopher Road Intersection. Right turning vehicles must navigate a sharp turn, requiring them to slow down significantly on the high speed roadway.**
			**Intermediate Range:**
			Evaluate and prioritize individual intersections for possible realignment to decrease intersection skew.RSA No. 2 – Conclusions

The RSA team reviewed the US Highway 2 corridor utilizing recent crash data, local and RSA team inputs, and IHSDM. IHSDM was used on a portion of the corridor to help select sites for detailed review and to help identify priority areas where improvements should be considered. Areas with crash potential, identified through IHSDM, were investigated in the field and helped focus the team’s efforts. This was particularly helpful as many of the crashes in the section analyzed were widely dispersed. IHSDM identified several critical "spot" locations along the corridor as well as horizontal curves.

Critical horizontal curves were identified using IHSDM and their common features were identified and verified in the field. These features include:

Sharp curves (curves with small radii).
	Curves on steep grades or at the end of steep grades.
	Curves with intersections or access points within or in close proximity to the curve.Treatments for these locations included the following:

Removing or relocating roadside hazards.
	Providing a recovery area (e.g., curve widening).
	Utilize a systemic approach to install/improve curve warning signs, to include evaluating alignment by conducting a ball-bank test.
	Investigation of guardrail installation in select locations.
	Evaluate speeds and investigate speed management measures.
	Increased access management.
	Additional enforcement measures.In summary, the use of IHSDM emphasized the need for additional measures to improve safety on horizontal curves.
      
  Book traversal links for APPENDIX A: RSA CASE STUDY DETAILS: RSA No. 2 – US Highway 2, Kalispell, Montana
      ‹ APPENDIX A: RSA CASE STUDY DETAILS: RSA No. 1 – Snake Hill Road, Glocester, Rhode Island
                    Up
                    APPENDIX A: RSA CASE STUDY DETAILS: RSA No. 3 – US 97, Klamath County, Oregon ›
                
                Book:Road Safety Audit Case Studies: Using IHSDM in the RSA Process
              Executive Summary
                Background
                Eight Steps of an RSA
                RSAs: Benefits and Costs
                Purpose
                IHSDM Overview
                Using IHSDM in the RSA Process
                Utilizing IHSDM Results
                Conclusions and Recommendations
                References
                APPENDIX A: RSA CASE STUDY DETAILS: RSA No. 1 – Snake Hill Road, Glocester, Rhode Island
                APPENDIX A: RSA CASE STUDY DETAILS: RSA No. 2 – US Highway 2, Kalispell, Montana
                APPENDIX A: RSA CASE STUDY DETAILS: RSA No. 3 – US 97, Klamath County, Oregon
                APPENDIX B: IHSDM DATA REQUIREMENTS AND ANAYSIS METHODOLOGY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

**Federal Highway Administration**

1200 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, SE

WASHINGTON, DC 20590

202-366-4000Subscribe to email updates
                    About
  

        
              About FHWA
                Careers
                Org Chart
                Staff Directories
                Work with UsPrograms
  

        
              Acquisition Management
                Civil Rights
                Federal Lands Highway
                Infrastructure
                Innovative Program Delivery
                Operations
                Planning, Environment, and Realty
                Policy
                Research, Development, and Technology
                SafetyPolicies, Rights, Legal
  

        
              About DOT
                Accessibility
                Budget and Performance
                Civil Rights
                FOIA
                Information Quality
                No FEAR Act
                Office of Inspector General
                Privacy Policy
                USA.gov
                Web Policies and Notices
                Web StandardsNews & Events
  

        
              Newsroom
                Press Releases
                Speeches & Testimony
                Media Contacts
                Connect with Us