SAMPLE 

Roadway Departure Safety Implementation Plan 

July 2011 
 i 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. iii

Background ............................................................................................................................... 1

The Roadway Departure Safety Goal ........................................................................................ 2

The Approach .............................................................................................................................................. 2

Distribution of the State Roadway Departure Fatality Problem .......................................................... 3

Summary of Roadway Departure Crash Concerns ................................................................................ 5

Summary of Roadway Departure Countermeasure Deployments ...................................................... 5

Key First Steps ........................................................................................................................... 7

Major Components of the Plan ................................................................................................. 8

Systematic Deployment of Low-Cost Countermeasures ...................................................................... 8

Enhanced Sign and Markings to Reduce Roadway Departures on Curves .................................................. 9

Centerline Rumble Strips to Reduce Head-On and Opposing-Flow Sideswipe Crashes ............................. 14

Edge Line Rumble Stripes and Shoulder Rumble Strips to Reduce Road Departure Crashes ................... 17

Select Tree Removal in Rural Areas to Reduce Future Tree Crash Occurrences ........................................ 18

Comprehensive Education, Enforcement, and Engineering (3-E) Improvements ........................ 20

A. Targeted Corridor Education and Enforcement (No or Very Minor Infrastructure Improvements) ...... 20

B. Targeted 3-E Engineering, Education, and Enforcement for Corridors ................................................ 24

C. Targeted Engineering, Education, and Enforcement for Cities ............................................................. 27

Deployment of Traditional Roadway Departure Countermeasures .................................................. 28

Roadway Departure Countermeasures on Local Roads ...................................................................... 30

Key Implementation Steps ........................................................................................................................ 31

Incorporation of Low-Cost, Cost-Effective Countermeasures at Crash Locations within the 

Limits of Work for Programmed Projects ............................................................................................ 32

Key Implementation Steps ........................................................................................................................ 33

Deployment and Evaluation of New Roadway Departure Countermeasures ................................. 34

Performance Measures ............................................................................................................................. 35

Production Performance Measures ............................................................................................................ 36

Effectiveness Performance Measures– Program Effectiveness in Reducing Targeted Crashes ....................... 38

Summary .................................................................................................................................. 39
 i 

List of Tables 

Table 1: State Roadway Departure Fatalities ................................................................................................. 2

Table 2: Roadway Departure Crashes, and Fatalities by Locality – 2004-2008 ........................................ 3

Table 3: Summary of Roadway Departure Fatalities, Crashes, and Fatalities per 100 Crashes – 2004-

2008 .................................................................................................................................................... 3

Table 4: Enforcement and Education-Related Roadway Departure Crashes by Human Factor and 

Locality – 2004-2008 ....................................................................................................................... 4

Table 5: Roadway Departure Crashes by Crash Type, Number of Crashes, and Number of Fatalities-

-2004-2008 ........................................................................................................................................ 4

Table 6: Summary of Countermeasure Deployment Levels and Estimated Safety Impacts .................. 5

Table 7: Summary of 5 Year Curve Crashes (2004-2008) ............................................................................ 9

Table 8: Enhanced Signs and Markings for Curves – Curve Roadway Departure Crashes – State 

Rural Roads (2004-2008) .............................................................................................................. 10

Table 9: Enhanced Signs and Markings for Curves Plus Flashing Beacons – Curve Roadway 

Departure Crashes – State Rural Roads (2004-2008) ............................................................... 11

Table 10: Enhanced Signs and Markings for Curves – Curve Roadway Departure Crashes – State 

Urban Roads (2004-2008) ............................................................................................................. 12

Table 11: Basic Set of Sign and Marking Improvements – State Curve Roadway Departures (2004-

2008) ................................................................................................................................................ 13

Table 12: Centerline Rumble Stripes – Head-On and Sideswipe, Opposite Direction Crashes – State 

Rural Roads ≥ 22 Feet Road Width (2004-2008) ...................................................................... 14

Table 13: Centerline Rumble Stripes – Head-On and Sideswipe, Opposite Direction Crashes – ≥ 20 

and < 22 Feet Road Width – State Rural Roads – Potential Full Impact if Pilot is 

Successful (2004-2008) .................................................................................................................. 15

Table 14: Centerline Rumble Strips – Head-On & Sideswipe, Opposite Direction Crashes – ≥ 22 

Feet Road Width – State Urban Roads – Potential Full Impact if Pilot is Successful (2004-

2008) ................................................................................................................................................ 15

Table 15: Summary of Edge Line Rumble Stripe and Shoulder Rumble Strip Deployments (2004-

2008) ................................................................................................................................................ 17

Table 16: Tree Removal/Safety Enhancements – Tree Crashes (Any Harmful Event) – State Rural 

Roads (2004-2008) ......................................................................................................................... 19

Table 17: Enhanced Corridor Enforcement – Roadway Departure Crashes – Speed-Related or 

Unbelted Driver – State Roads – Interstates (2004-2008) ....................................................... 20

Table 18: Enhanced Corridor Enforcement – Roadway Departure Crashes – Speed-Related or 

Unbelted Driver – Not Interstates (2004-2008) ........................................................................ 21

Table 19: Enhanced Corridor Enforcement – Roadway Departure Crashes – Alcohol-Related – State 

Roads (2004-2008) ......................................................................................................................... 21
 ii 

Table 20: Key Implementation Steps for Roadway Departure Education and Enforcement Strategies 

(2004-2008) ..................................................................................................................................... 23

Table 21: Candidate Corridors for 3-E (Engineering, Education, Enforcement) Initiatives (2004-

2008) ................................................................................................................................................ 24

Table 22: Key Implementation Steps for 3-E Corridor Enhancements .................................................. 26

Table 23: Summary of Roadway Departure Crashes by Major City (2004-2008) .................................. 27

Table 24: Key Implementation Steps for Roadway Departure City-Wide 3E Improvements ............. 27

Table 25: Median Barrier – Head-On and Sideswipe, Opposite Direction Crashes – Raised 

Mountable, Flush, and Depressed Median Types – State Rural Roads (2004-2008) ........... 29

Table 26: Key Steps to Consider Median Enhancements to Reduce Head-On and Opposing SideSwipe Crashes on Restricted Access High-Speed Highways ................................................... 29

Table 27: High Friction Surfaces – Roadway Departure Crashes – Wet – State Rural Roads (2004-

2008) ................................................................................................................................................ 29

Table 28: Key Steps to Consider Median Enhancements To Reduce Head-On and Opposing SideSwipe Crashes on Restricted Access High-Speed Highways ................................................... 30

Table 29: Enhanced Signs and Markings for Curves – Curve Roadway Departure Crashes – Local 

Roads (2004-2008) ......................................................................................................................... 31

Table 30: Key Implementation Steps for Basic Set of Sign and Marking Improvements – Local 

Curves .............................................................................................................................................. 31

Table 31: Key Implementation Steps for Considering the Inclusion of Low-Cost, Cost-Effective 

Countermeasures in Other Programmed Projects .................................................................... 33

Table 32: Infrastructure Traffic Calming Measures to Reduce Speeding-Related Crashes – State and 

Local Roads (2004-2008) .............................................................................................................. 35

Table 33: Key Steps to Evaluate New Roadway Departure Countermeasures ...................................... 35

Table 34: Production Performance Measures .............................................................................................. 36

Table 35: Performance Measures .................................................................................................................. 38
 iii 

 Executive Summary 

Note: The following document is an example Roadway Departure (RD) Safety Implementation Plan 

for a fictional State with fictional characteristics (e.g., number and types of RD crashes, 

implementation costs, and benefits). The purpose of this document is to give readers a general idea 

of the structure and content of the RD Safety Implementation Plans. It should not be used for 

State-specific data analysis, countermeasure selection or other decision-making safety management 

processes. 

The State Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) has a safety goal of reducing the number of annual 

roadway fatalities within the State to no more than XXX by the end of XXXX. 

Roadway departure fatalities account for approximately XX percent of all fatalities in STATE. A 

data analysis package along with a set of roadway departure countermeasures was merged to identify 

a set of cost effective countermeasures, deployment levels, and funds needed to achieve a XX 

percent roadway departure fatality reduction goal. 

The data analysis indicates that the roadway departure goal can be achieved with the following 

enhancements to the safety program: 

 The traditional approach of relying primarily on pursuing major improvements at high-crash 

roadway departure locations must be complemented with a) a systematic approach that 

involves deploying large numbers of relatively low-cost, cost-effective countermeasures at 

many targeted high-crash roadway departures and b) a comprehensive approach that 

coordinates an engineering, education, and enforcement (3E) initiative on corridors and in 

urban areas with large numbers of severe roadway departure crashes. 

 The systematic improvement categories to be deployed include the following: sign and 

marking enhancements on curves with crash histories, centerline rumble strips on rural twolane highways, edge line rumble stripes and shoulder rumble strips, installation of microtexture or similar high skid surfaces, and selective rural tree removal program. 

 The systematic and comprehensive approaches will generate a much larger number of 

roadway departure improvements statewide, and District personnel will have to be trained 

and take a more active role in identifying the appropriateness of systematic improvements 

within their Districts. 

 The safety program needs to be expanded to incorporate low-cost, cost-effective 

countermeasures on other types of projects, such as resurfacing and surface transportation 

projects, when a crash history exists within the area of the work and the countermeasures 

can reduce future crash potential. 

o Use of the Safety Edge 

 The safety program must encompass cost-effective treatments on local roads since a sizeable 

portion of the statewide roadway departure crash problem occurs on local roads. 

 Additional countermeasures rarely or never used in this state need to be carefully and 

judiciously deployed on highway sections that have specific crash problems that these 

countermeasures can address. The countermeasure should be evaluated to determine if more 

widespread use is appropriate. 
 iv 

 To achieve the roadway departure safety goal, it will take an investment of approximately 

$XX million over the 5-year period or X million per year. In addition, X million annually will 

be needed for education and enforcement initiatives on corridors and cities. 

This plan provides specific information on how these additions to the current safety program can be 

effectively implemented. 

The bottom line for a successful plan implementation is that, once fully implemented over a 10-year 

period, approximately XX, XXX roadway departure crashes and almost XXXX disabling injury 

crashes will be prevented, and more than XXX lives will be saved. 
 1 

Background 

The STATE SHSP has an overall goal of reducing the number of roadway fatalities to more than 

XXX annually by the end of XXXX. One of the emphasis areas identified in the SHSP is to improve 

roadway departure safety. Roadway departure fatalities within the State account for approximately 

XX percent of all fatalities. The SHSP provides insight on broad initiatives in the roadway departure 

safety area to support achieving the overall goal, but it lacks detail regarding countermeasures, 

actions, deployment characteristics, costs, impacts, and key steps that have to be taken to improve 

roadway departure safety significantly. The roadway departure portion of the tentative SHSP goal is 

a XX percent reduction of roadway departure fatalities by XXXX. The purpose of this plan is to 

provide the specific details on countermeasures, actions, key steps, schedules, and investments 

needed to achieve that goal. 
2

The Roadway Departure Safety Goal 

Over the past several years, STATE has had continued reductions in roadway departure fatalities as 

indicated in Table 1. 

Table 1: State Roadway Departure Fatalities 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total 

Number of Roadway Departure Fatalities 547 596 538 496 469 2,646 

The roadway departure goal is to reduce the XXX roadway departure fatalities that occurred in 

XXXX by XX percent by XXXX, or to prevent approximately XX additional roadway departure 

deaths from occurring annually. 

The Approach 

The HSIP program has been based upon a traditional approach directed towards improving roadway 

safety at specific high-crash locations by identifying and analyzing individual crashes at the locations, 

defining crash patterns, determining appropriate countermeasures to reduce future crash potential, 

and then implementing those countermeasures. While this is an important approach and needs to 

continue, it has limited impact in terms of reducing statewide numbers of roadway departure 

fatalities. 

To help lower statewide roadway departure fatalities, two additional approaches are recommended 

to complement the traditional approach: 

 Systematic application of large numbers of cost-effective, low-cost countermeasures at

locations that have specific, moderate crash types above a specified crash frequency level.

 Comprehensive application of low-cost infrastructure improvements coupled with targeted

education and enforcement initiatives on corridors and in municipalities that exhibit a very

high severe roadway departure crash history.

In the systematic approach, the first step is to identify low-cost countermeasures. Then the crash 

data system is searched to identify highway sections that have targeted crashes at or above a crash 

threshold that would ensure cost-effective deployment of these countermeasures. Estimates of the 

impacts of the deployments can be made in terms of projected statewide roadway departure crashes 

prevented, annual lives saved, and overall deployment costs. 

The comprehensive approach combines sets of cost-effective, low-cost infrastructure 

countermeasures with a coordinated set of education and highly visible enforcement initiatives 

targeted to reduce severe roadway departure crashes on corridors and within municipalities that have 

a severe roadway departure crash history. 

Three other features need to be added to the plan to better improve the ability to achieve the safety 

improvement goal: 

1. The safety program should be expanded to incorporate low-cost, cost-effective

countermeasures on other types of projects such as resurfacing and surface transportation

projects – especially if a crash history exists within the area of the work and the

countermeasure can reduce future crash potential.
 3 

2. The safety program should include cost-effective treatments on local roads since a portion 

of the statewide roadway departure crash problem occurs on local roads. 

3. Additional countermeasures rarely or never used in STATE need to be carefully and 

judiciously deployed on highway sections that have specific crash problems that these 

countermeasures can address. The countermeasure should be evaluated to determine if 

more widespread use is appropriate. 

Distribution of the State Roadway Departure Fatality Problem 

The roadway departure crash and fatality data for STATE was analyzed to gain insight on the 

distribution and characteristics of the roadway departure crash problem. Key information derived 

from the roadway departure data analysis is shown in Tables 2-5. 

Table 2: Roadway Departure Crashes, and Fatalities by Locality – 2004-2008 

Locality 

Crashes Fatalities 

Total Percentage Total Percentage 

State 106,989 71.02% 2,244 84.81% 

Rural 75,281 49.97% 1,886 71.28% 

Urban 31,708 21.05% 358 13.53% 

Local 43,661 28.98% 402 15.19% 

Grand Total 150,650 100.00% 2,646 100.00% 

Table 3: Summary of Roadway Departure Fatalities, Crashes, and Fatalities per 100 Crashes 

– 2004-2008 

Locality State Rural State Urban Local 

All RD Crashes 

Fatalities 1,881 358 402 

Crashes 75,281 31,708 43,661 

Fat/100 Crashes 2.49 1.13 0.92 

Interstate RD Crashes 

Fatalities 117 75 - 

Crashes 6,296 8,973 - 

Fat/100 Crashes 1.86 0.84 - 

State Route Type RD Crashes 

Fatalities 1,318 168 - 

Crashes 52,288 14,411 - 

Fat/100 Crashes 2.52 1.12 - 

US Route Type RD Crashes 

Fatalities 429 100 - 

Crashes 14,350 7,372 - 

Fat/100 Crashes 2.99 1.36 - 

Other Route Type RD State Crashes 
 4 

Locality State Rural State Urban Local 

Fatalities 22 15 - 

Crashes 2,347 952 - 

Fat/100 Crashes 0.93 1.57 - 

Table 4: Enforcement and Education-Related Roadway Departure Crashes by Human 

Factor and Locality – 2004-2008 

Human Factor Alcohol Speeding or Unbelted Speeding Unbelted 

Locality 

State 

Rural 

State 

Urban Local 

State 

Rural 

Interstate 

Only 

State 

Urban 

Interstate 

Only 

State 

Rural 

State 

Urban Local Local 

Enforcement and Education-related RD Crashes 

Fatalities 562 116 177 77 52 1,318 209 128 262 

Incapacitating 

Injury Crashes 926 284 454 113 148 2,161 486 350 602 

Total Crashes 7,733 3,245 5,828 1,547 2,224 18,558 5,550 6,192 6,178 

Incapacitating 

Injury Crashes/ 

100 Crashes 

11.97 8.75 7.79 7.30 6.35 11.64 8.26 5.65 9.74 

Fatalities/100 

Crashes 7.27 3.57 3.04 4.98 2.34 7.10 3.77 2.07 4.24 

Table 5: Roadway Departure Crashes by Crash Type, Number of Crashes, and Number of 

Fatalities--2004-2008 

Crash Type Number of Crashes Number of Fatalities 

 Fixed Object 128,091 1,978 

 Head On 8,033 815 

 Overturn/Rollover 17,995 484 

 Ran Off Road - Left 10,391 158 

 Ran Off Road - Right 18,303 257 

 Ran Off Road - Straight 1,061 5 

Sideswipe, Opposite Direction 12,115 136 

Total 195,989 3,833 
 5 

Summary of Roadway Departure Crash Concerns 

 Crashes predominantly occur in rural areas; severity of crashes is greater in rural areas than 

urban areas. 

 Approximately 25 percent of the fatalities involve head-on or opposing-flow sideswipe 

crashes. 

 Driving violations (speeding, alcohol, and unbelted driving) are major factors in roadway 

departure crashes. Many of these crashes involve multiple driving violation factors. 

Summary of Roadway Departure Countermeasure Deployments 

A summary of the countermeasures, deployment levels, costs, and estimated lives saved provided in 

Table 6. 

Table 6: Summary of Countermeasure Deployment Levels and Estimated Safety Impacts 

Countermeasure Approach 

Number of Sections Construction Cost ($ Million) Enforcement, Education and EMS Costs (Annual $ Million) Estimated Annual Crashes Reduced Estimated Annual IncapacitatingInjury Crashes Reduced Estimated Annual Fatalities Reduced 

Enhanced Signs and Markings for 

Curves – State Rural Roads Systematic 976 4.87 - 198 13.34 5.13 

Enhanced Signs and Markings for 

Curves Plus Flashing Beacons – 

State Rural Roads 

Systematic 16 0.12 - 7 0.50 0.20 

Enhanced Signs and Markings for 

Curves – State Urban Roads Systematic 14 0.07 - 23 1.10 0.32 

Enhanced Signs and Markings for 

Curves – Local Roads Systematic 151 1.51 - 88 3.90 0.89 

Centerline Rumble Stripes – ≥ 22 

Feet Road Width – State Rural 

Roads 

Systematic 254 3.49 - 99 9.40 10.87 

Centerline Rumble Stripes – ≥ 20 

and < 22 Feet Road Width – State 

Rural Roads 

Systematic 368 4.02 - 158 12.30 7.64 

Edge Line Rumble Stripes or 

Shoulder Rumble Strips – 2 & 4 

Lane – State Rural Roads 

Systematic 1,483 5.92 - 624 42.60 13.58 

High Friction Surfaces – State 

Rural Roads – Micro Texture 

Surface 

Systematic 159 6.81 - 200 8.30 2.18 
 6 

Countermeasure Approach 

Number of Sections Construction Cost ($ Million) Enforcement, Education and EMS Costs (Annual $ Million) Estimated Annual Crashes Reduced Estimated Annual IncapacitatingInjury Crashes Reduced Estimated Annual Fatalities Reduced 

Tree Removal/Safety 

Enhancements – State Rural 

Roads 

Systematic 154 3.85 - 83 8.60 3.67 

Tree Removal/Safety 

Enhancements – Local Roads Systematic 16 0.40 - 16 1.60 0.70 

Guard Rail Enhancements – State 

Rural Systematic 115 2.30 - - 1.31 0.56 

Traffic Calming to Reduce 

Speeding-related Crashes (Pilot 

first) 

Systematic 99 5.05 - 146 9.36 4.38 

Enhanced Corridor Enforcement – 

Speeding-Related or Unbelted 

Driving – State Roads – Interstates 

Education and 

Enforcement 20 - 0.6 19 1.30 0.60 

Enhanced Corridor Enforcement – 

Speeding-Related or Unbelted 

Driving – State Roads – Not 

Interstates 

Education and 

Enforcement 109 - 3.27 53 5.70 3.07 

Enhanced Corridor Enforcement – 

Alcohol-Related – State Roads 

Education and 

Enforcement 123 - 3.81 38 5.02 2.84 

Corridor 3E Improvements – State 

Roads – Not Interstates Comprehensive 3 1.50 0.30 68 3.00 1.50 

Area-Wide 3E Improvements – 

Cities – State Roads Comprehensive 2 2.00 0.20 300 16.00 4.40 

Median Barrier – Raised 

Mountable, Flush, and Depressed 

Median Types – State Roads 

Traditional 49 5.88 - 26 2.90 3.04 

Total 4,111 47.85 8.18 2,146 146.23 65.57 
 7 

Key First Steps 

There are several key first steps that need to be taken before actual countermeasure implementation 

activities begin. 

1. The draft implementation plan should be presented to the Districts and other affected 

Headquarters organizations to share, review, provide input, and understand the conceptual 

enhancements to the safety program. 

2. Initial preparatory materials need to be developed, training provided, and processes 

established to begin implementation of the low-cost countermeasures being considered for 

systematic deployment. These countermeasures include sign and marking enhancements for 

curves, centerline rumble strips on rural non-freeway highways, edge line and shoulder 

rumble strips, and tree removal in rural areas. 

3. Meetings need to be arranged with appropriate Maintenance, Design, and Planning 

personnel to further explore and define the processes and responsibilities that need to be 

developed to consider the incorporation of low-cost, cost-effective countermeasures into 

other program categories such as the resurfacing program and the surface transportation 

improvement program. The primary low-cost countermeasures to consider for inclusion in 

other project types at targeted high-crash sections are as follows: sign and marking 

enhancements for horizontal curves, centerline rumble strips in rural areas, edge line and 

shoulder rumble strips, expansion of the use of the pavement wedge from safety projects to 

all projects, tree removal in rural areas, and higher friction surfaces and/or surface drainage 

improvements. 

4. Meetings need to be arranged with the Governor’s Highway Safety Representative and 

appropriate police personnel to review the crash data that identifies highway sections with 

concentrations of speeding, unbelted, and alcohol-related crash histories. Targeted 

enforcement and education initiatives need to be developed and considered for 

implementation at many of these locations to reduce the potential for future similar crashes. 

5. Data needs to be further analyzed and shared with regional and division personnel along 

with the Governor’s Highway Safety Representative to identify candidate corridors and cities 

for the 3-E comprehensive initiatives. 

6. The Roadway Departure Safety Committee created under the Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

should provide guidance and address issues and problems that arise during the 

implementation of the program. The committee should meet on a planned quarterly basis 

throughout the implementation phase. 

7. The STATE DOT LEAD OFFICE should develop and deploy a tracking system to monitor 

the implementation of the various types of countermeasures being deployed. This system 

should include forms designed to secure “before” and “after” targeted crash histories, dates 

of implementation, linkages to other roadway departure improvements being implemented 

under other programs, and other information deemed pertinent. 
 8 

Major Components of the Plan 

The remaining sections of this plan provides a detailed description of key implementation steps for 

each of the major efforts needed to achieve a XX percent reduction in roadway departure fatalities. 

The efforts are categorized as follows: 

 Systematic deployment of low-cost, cost-effective countermeasures. 

 Incorporation of low-cost, cost-effective countermeasures into other programmed projects. 

 Local road improvements 

 Comprehensive 3-E improvements. 

 Traditional improvements. 

 Implementation of new countermeasures. 

Systematic Deployment of Low-Cost Countermeasures 

This initiative involves the installation of several sets of low-cost, cost-effective countermeasures at 

locations with high crash histories to decrease the potential of future crashes significantly. Four 

types of low-cost countermeasures have been identified for extensive systematic deployment as 

follows: 

1. Enhanced sign and marking improvements for curves with crash histories. 

2. Centerline rumble strips to reduce head-on and opposing-flow sideswipe crashes. 

3. Edge line and shoulder rumble strips to reduce single vehicle roadway departure crashes. 

4. Select tree removal or tree crash prevention countermeasures in rural areas to reduce future 

tree crash occurrences. 

In addition to the above countermeasures, one other countermeasure may be deployed either 

systematically or as part of the traditional approach: surface friction enhancements to reduce the 

potential of future wet weather crashes. 

The methodology to identify sections of a highway that have crashes at or above the threshold 

breaks down a roadway in uniform, discrete section lengths and identifies sections with a number of 

targeted crash types that equal or exceed the defined threshold. However, the output from this 

process needs refinement based upon field conditions or overall route characteristics. For more 

advanced analyses, additional methods and analysis tools are available in the Highway Safety Manual. 

As an example, a single curve could have portions and crashes in two joining sections. Thus curve 

crashes on either side of a section identified as a high-crash curve section need to be reviewed to 

determine if there are any additional curve crashes that occurred on the same curve but in the 

adjoining section. As another example, a rural highway may be 10 miles in length and 75 percent of 

the sections on the route meet the crash threshold for edge line /shoulder rumble strips. For routes 

with numerous sections that meet the crash threshold, the application of edge line rumble strips on 

the entire route rather than just those sections that meet the threshold needs to be considered. This 

may be determined by field review or GIS mapping. 

The Traffic Safety Unit has the list of sections of highway that equal or exceed the crash thresholds 

for each of these countermeasures. 
 9 

Enhanced Sign and Markings to Reduce Roadway Departures on Curves 

Table 7: Summary of 5 Year Curve Crashes (2004-2008) 

Locality State Rural State Urban Local 

ADT Interval <1,000 

1,001 - 

3,000 

3,001 - 

5,000 >5,000 <1,000 

1,001 - 

3,000 

3,001 - 

5,000 >5,000 Total 

Curve RD Crashes 

Fatalities 282 369 169 213 2 9 11 96 210 

Incapacitating Injury 

Crashes 834 1,069 393 452 6 46 56 305 918 

Total Crashes 11,475 16,072 6,165 7,006 129 977 969 6,729 20,710 

Incapacitating Injury 

Crashes/100 Crashes 7.27 6.65 6.37 6.45 4.65 4.71 4.75 4.53 4.43 

Fatalities/100 Crashes 2.54 2.30 2.74 3.04 1.55 0.92 1.14 1.43 1.01 

Curves on rural State highways with the number of crashes at or above threshold levels and 

considered for sign and marking enhancements are summarized in Table 8. 
 10 

Table 8: Enhanced Signs and Markings for Curves – Curve Roadway Departure Crashes – 

State Rural Roads (2004-2008) 

AADT 

Threshold Crash Level (5 Years) Number of Curves Number of Targeted 5 Year Crashes on Curves Estimated Number of Improvements 1Construction Costs ($ Million) 2Fatalities per 100 Crashes Incapacitating Injury Crashes per 100 Crashes Annual Targeted Crash Reduction 3Annual Estimated Incapacitating Injury Crash Reduction Annual Estimated Fatality Reduction 

<1,000 3 578 1,463 405 2.02 2.54 7.27 61 4.43 1.55 

1,000-3,000 3 420 1521 294 1.47 2.30 6.65 64 4.24 1.47 

3,001 - 5,000 3 222 937 155 0.77 2.74 6.37 39 2.48 1.07 

>5000 4 175 817 122 0.61 3.04 6.45 34 2.19 1.03 

Total 976 4.87 - - 13.34 5.13 

1 Assumes 70% of curves can be improved. 

2 Assumes an average cost of $5,000 per curve. 

3 A CMF of 0.70 is used (oversized, left, and right fluorescent yellow, advance warning signs; chevrons; slow and XX mph 

pavement markings; center and edge lines). 

Within the set of curves identified in Table 8, those curves with higher crash levels in which the 

addition of flashing beacons on the advanced curve warning signs can be considered are provided in 

Table 9. 
 11 

Table 9: Enhanced Signs and Markings for Curves Plus Flashing Beacons – Curve Roadway 

Departure Crashes – State Rural Roads (2004-2008) 

AADT 

(Between PC 

and PT) 

Threshold Crash Level (5 Years) Number of Sections Number of Targeted 5 Year Crashes on Sections Estimated Number of Improvements 1Construction Costs ($ Million) 2Fatalities per 100 Crashes Incapacitating Injury Crashes per 100 Crashes Annual Targeted Crash Reduction 3Annual Estimated Incapacitating Injury Crash Reduction Annual Estimated Fatality Reduction 

<1,000 10 - - - - 2.54 7.27 - - - 

1,000-3,000 10 5 63 4 0.03 2.30 6.65 - - - 

3,001 - 5,000 10 5 70 4 0.03 2.74 6.37 - - - 

>5000 12 12 110 8 0.06 3.04 6.45 - - - 

Total - - 243 16 0.12 - - 7 0.5 0.20 

1 Assumes 70% of curves can be improved. 

2 Assumes an average cost of $7,000 per curve for the flashing beacon. 

3 A reduction of 0.15 below the enhanced signs and markings for curves CMF (reducing the overall CMF from 0.70 to 0.55). 

Curves on urban State highways that have crashes at or above crash thresholds in which sign and 

marking enhancements are to be considered are summarized in Table 10. 
 12 

Table 10: Enhanced Signs and Markings for Curves – Curve Roadway Departure Crashes – 

State Urban Roads (2004-2008) 

AADT 

(Between PC 

and PT) 

Threshold Crash Level (5 Years) Number of Sections Number of Targeted 5 Year Crashes on Sections Estimated Number of Improvements 1Construction Costs ($ Million) 2Fatalities per 100 Crashes Incapacitating Injury Crashes per 100 Crashes Annual Targeted Crash Reduction 3Annual Estimated Incapacitating Injury Crash Reduction Annual Estimated Fatality Reduction 

<1,000 10 - - - - 1.55 4.65 - - - 

1,000-3,000 10 3 56 - - 0.92 4.71 - - - 

3,001 - 5,000 10 2 25 - - 1.14 4.75 - - - 

>5000 12 16 432 - - 1.43 4.53 - - - 

Total - 21 513 14 0.07 1.40 4.60 23 1.1 0.32 

1 Assumes 70% of curves can be improved. 

2 Assumes an average cost of $5,000 per curve. 

3 A CMF of 0.70 is used (oversized, left, and right fluorescent yellow, advance warning signs; chevrons; slow and XX mph 

pavement markings; center and edge lines). 

The proposed signing and marking treatments for these curves is as follows: 

 Oversize advanced fluorescent yellow curve warning signs, both left and right. 

 Chevrons with spacing in accordance with the 2009 MUTCD. 

 Advisory speed plates beneath the advanced warning sign using a standardized approach to 

determine the appropriate advisory speed. 

 "SLOW" and curve symbol pavement markings in advance of the curve. Note that the curve 

pavement marking symbol layout must receive FHWA approval. In addition alternate 

methods to slow high end approach speeds such as the use of peripheral transverse 

pavement markings will also be considered. 

 Elimination of any pavement edge drop offs two inches or greater in depth. 

A summary of these enhancements including an estimated number of deployments, costs, and 

annual crashes, incapacitating injury crashes, and fatalities prevented is provided in Table 11. 
 13 

Table 11: Basic Set of Sign and Marking Improvements – State Curve Roadway Departures 

(2004-2008) 

Category Approach 

Number of Sections Construction Cost ($ Million) Enforcement, Education and EMS Costs (Annual $ Thousand) Estimated Annual Crashes Reduced Estimated Annual Disabling Injuries Reduced Estimated Annual Fatalities Reduced 

Enhanced Signs and Markings 

for Curves – State Rural Roads Systematic 642 3.21 - 142 9.70 3.65 

Enhanced Signs and Markings 

for Curves Plus Flashing 

Beacons – State Rural Roads 

Systematic 16 0.12 - 7 0.50 0.20 

Enhanced Signs and Markings 

for Curves – State Urban Roads Systematic 14 0.07 - 23 1.10 0.32 

Total - 672 3.50 - 172 11.30 4.17 

The basic steps and schedule to implement this initiative are as follows: 

1. Gain management acceptance of the Roadway Departure Safety Implementation Plan. 

2. Traffic Headquarters develops guidelines and a standard template treatment for curves that 

are at or above the threshold in the above tables. The guidelines will be issued to the District 

personnel for implementation. Note that the guidance will provide a process to consider 

treatment and funding alternatives for similar sharp curves on the same route. 

Schedule: Guidelines issued within 6 months of acceptance of the Plan 

3. District personnel will use guidelines and template(s) to field review each identified curve 

with crashes and determine appropriate sign and marking improvements. District personnel 

will assemble District wide or county wide contract plans to implement the improvements. 

Schedule: Curve sign and marking recommendations completed within 12 months of acceptance of the Plan 

4. Contracts will be let and improvements will be implemented 

Schedule: Sign and marking enhancements for all curves completed within 24 months of acceptance of the 

Plan 
 14 

Centerline Rumble Strips to Reduce Head-On and Opposing-Flow Sideswipe 

Crashes 

Center line rumble strips will be implemented under two scenarios as follows 

1. Systematic deployment of centerline rumble strips on two- and multi-lane undivided rural 

highways with a pavement width of at least 22 ft. and a crash threshold of at least X or more 

head-on and opposing-flow sideswipe crashes in a 15,000 ft. stretch of rural highway 

occurring in the past 5 years of crash data. 

2. Pilot evaluation of deploying centerline rumble strips on the following highway types: 

a. Two lane undivided rural highways with a pavement width between 20 and 22 ft. and 

a crash threshold of at least X or more head-on and opposing-flow sideswipe crashes 

in a 15,000 ft. stretch of rural highway occurring in the past 5 years of crash data. 

b. Two- and multi-lane undivided urban highways with a pavement width of at least 22 

ft. and a crash threshold of at least X or more head-on and opposing-flow sideswipe 

crashes in a 15,000 ft. stretch of urban highway occurring in the past 5 years of crash 

data. 

The summary of high-crash, head-on, opposing flow sideswipe sections where centerline rumble 

strips are to be considered for installation on state rural highways at least 22 ft. in width are 

summarized in Table 12. The actual locations of these sections reside in the Office of Traffic 

Operations. 

Table 12: Centerline Rumble Stripes – Head-On and Sideswipe, Opposite Direction Crashes 

– State Rural Roads ≥ 22 Feet Road Width (2004-2008) 

Section Length 

Threshold Crash Level(5 Years) Number of Sections Number of Targeted 5 Year Crashes in the Sections Estimated Number of Improvements 1Construction Costs ($ Million) 2Fatalities per 100 Crashes Disabling Injuries per 100 Crashes Annual Targeted Crash Reduction 3Annual Estimated Disabling Injury Reduction Annual Estimated Fatality Reduction 

15,000 feet 3 363 1,397 290 4.35 12.24 17.67 46.93 8.29 5.74 

Total - - - 290 4.35 - - 46.93 8.29 5.74 

1 Assumes 80% of locations can be improved. 

2 Assumes an average cost of $15,000 per section. 

3 A CMF of 0.79 is used. 
 15 

Table 13: Centerline Rumble Stripes – Head-On and Sideswipe, Opposite Direction Crashes 

– ≥ 20 and < 22 Feet Road Width – State Rural Roads – Potential Full Impact if Pilot is 

Successful (2004-2008) 

Section Length 

Threshold Crash Level (5 Years) Number of Sections Number of Targeted 5 Year Crashes on Sections Estimated Number of Improvements 1Construction Costs ($ Million) 2Fatalities per 100 Crashes Incapacitating Injury Crashes per 100 Crashes Annual Targeted Crash Reduction 3Annual Estimated Incapacitating Injury Crash Reduction Annual Estimated Fatality Reduction 

15,000 feet 3 460 2,245 368 5.52 4.84 7.77 158 12.3 7.64

1

 Assumes 80% of locations can be improved. 

2

 Assumes an average cost of $15,000 per section. 

3

 A CMF of 0.56 is used. 

Table 14: Centerline Rumble Strips – Head-On & Sideswipe, Opposite Direction Crashes – 

≥ 22 Feet Road Width – State Urban Roads – Potential Full Impact if Pilot is Successful 

(2004-2008) 

Section Length

Threshold Crash Level (5 Years) Number of Sections Number of Targeted 5 Year Crashes on Sections Estimated Number of Improvements 1Construction Costs ($ Million) 2Fatalities per 100 Crashes Incapacitating Injury Crashesper 100 Crashes Annual Targeted Crash Reduction 3Annual Estimated Incapacitating Injury Crash Reduction Annual Estimated Fatality Reduction 

15,000 feet 5 92 742 74 1.11 1.90 6.54 6 0.38 0.11 

1 Assumes 80% of locations can be improved. 

2 Assumes an average cost of $11,000 per section. 

3 A CMF of 0.95 is used. 

The basic steps and schedule to implement this initiative are as follows: 

Rural Highways 22 Ft. or Greater in Width Highway Sections with Head-on and Opposing 

Flow Crashes at or Above the Crash Threshold 

1. Gain management acceptance of the Roadway Departure Safety Implementation Plan. 

2. Traffic Headquarters will develop guidelines and a standard template treatment for centerline 

rumble strips that are at or above the threshold in the above tables. The guidelines will be 

issued to District personnel for implementation. Note that the guidance will provide a 

process to consider the treatment and funding alternatives for providing centerline rumble 

strips on the entire or major portion of the route. The guidelines will also address pavement 

condition: if the pavement is old and deteriorated (at least 5 years old) or showing signs of 
 16 

visible distress, the application of centerline rumble strips may be deferred and incorporated 

into the next overlay of the section.

Schedule: Guidelines issued within 6 months of acceptance of the Plan. 

3. District personnel will use the guidelines and template(s) to field review each identified 

highway section with crashes and determine the appropriateness of installing centerline 

rumble strips now or deferring until the next overlay. District personnel will assemble a 

District wide or county wide contract plans to implement the improvements. 

Schedule: Centerline rumble strip locations within the District on rural State highways 22 ft. or wider are 

finalized within 12 months of acceptance of the Plan. 

4. Contracts will be let and improvements will be implemented. 

Schedule: Centerline rumble strips in place within 30 months of acceptance of the Plan. 

Centerline Rumble Strips on Rural Highways between 20 and 22 Feet Wide 

5. Gain management acceptance of the Roadway Departure Safety Implementation Plan. 

6. The Safety Office, in conjunction with the Design Office, will develop guidelines and a 

standard template treatment for centerline rumble strips to be installed at locations meeting 

the threshold in the above table. The guidelines will be issued to region personnel for 

implementation. Note that the guidance will provide a process to consider the treatment and 

funding alternatives for providing centerline rumble strips on the entire route or a major 

portion of the route. 

a. The guidelines will also address pavement condition. If the pavement is old and 

deteriorated (e.g., approximately 5 years old or more) or showing signs of visible 

distress, the application of centerline rumble strips may be deferred and incorporated 

into the next overlay of the section. 

Schedule: Guidelines issued within 6 months of acceptance of the Plan. 

7. Region personnel will use the guidelines and template(s) to field review each identified 

highway section with crashes to determine the appropriateness of installing centerline 

rumble strips now or deferring until the next overlay. Region personnel will assemble a 

region-wide or county-wide contract plans to implement the improvements. 

Schedule: Centerline rumble strip locations within the region on rural State highways are finalized within 12 

months of acceptance of the Plan. 

8. Contracts will be let and improvements will be implemented. 

Schedule: Centerline rumble strips in place within 30 months of acceptance of the Plan. 
 17 

Edge Line Rumble Stripes and Shoulder Rumble Strips to Reduce Road 

Departure Crashes 

Edge line and shoulder rumble strips will be implemented under two scenarios as follows: 

1. Systematic deployment of edge line rumble stripes or shoulder strips will be considered on 

55 MPH two- and multi-lane rural highways with a width of 22 ft. or wider and possessing a 

crash threshold of at least five or more single vehicle roadway departure crashes in a 3,000 ft. 

stretch of roadway in the past 5 years. If a paved shoulder is available, at least 4 ft. in width 

and in good structural condition, shoulder rumble strips should be considered; otherwise, 

edge line rumble stripes should be used. 

2. Pilot evaluation of deploying edge line rumble stripes on 45-50 MPH two- and multi-lane 

rural highways with a width of 22 ft. or wider and possessing a crash threshold of at least 

five or more single vehicle roadway departure crashes in a 3,000 ft. stretch of roadway in the 

past 5 years. 

The summary of high-crash, single vehicle sections where edge line and shoulder rumble strips are 

to be considered for installation are summarized in Table 15. The actual locations of these sections 

reside in the Office of Traffic Operations. 

Table 15: Summary of Edge Line Rumble Stripe and Shoulder Rumble Strip Deployments 

(2004-2008) 

Section Length 

(3,000 ft)

Threshold Crash Level (5 Years) Number of Sections Number of Targeted 5 Year Crashes on Sections Estimated Number of Improvements 1Construction Costs ($ Million) 2Fatalities per 100 Crashes Incapacitating Injury Crashes per 100 Crashes Annual Targeted Crash Reduction 3Annual Estimated Incapacitating Injury Crash Reduction Annual Estimated Fatality Reduction 

2 lanes, < 4 foot paved 

shoulder (Edge Line Rumble 

Strips) 

5 1,810 13,164 1,086 4.34 2.26 6.99 458 32.0 10.35 

2 lanes, ≥ 4 foot paved 

shoulder (Shoulder Rumble 

Strips) 

5 496 3,583 397 1.58 1.92 6.25 166 10.4 3.18 

Total - 2,306 16,747 1,483 5.92 4.18 13.24 624 42.4 13.53 

1 For edge line rumble stripes, assumes 60% of locations can be improved. For shoulder rumble strips, assumes 80% of 

locations can be improved. 

2 Assumes an average cost of $4,000 per section. 

3 A CMF of 0.71 is used. 
 18 

The basic steps and schedule to implement this initiative are as follows: 

1. Gain management acceptance of the Roadway Departure Safety Implementation Plan. 

2. Traffic Headquarters will develop guidelines and a standard template treatment for edge line 

rumble stripes and shoulder rumble strips to apply on highway sections that are at or above 

the threshold in the above tables and issue the guidelines and template to District personnel 

for implementation. Note that the guidance will provide a process to consider the treatment 

and funding alternatives for considering the application of edge line rumble stripes and 

shoulder rumble strips on the entire route rather than on just those sections of the route that 

are at or above the crash threshold. The guidelines will also address pavement condition: if 

the pavement is old and deteriorated (at least 5 years old) or showing signs of visible distress, 

the application of rumble strips may be deferred and incorporated into the next overlay of 

the section. The guidelines will also consider applications in areas with concentrations of 

residences that are close to the highway where noise could become a significant concern. In 

addition, if the section is part of a designated bicycle route or has significant bicycle activity, 

edge line rumble stripes and shoulder rumble strips will be further evaluated to determine 

the appropriateness of applying rumble stripes or strips. 

Schedule: Guidelines issued within 6 months of acceptance of the Plan. 

3. District personnel will use guidelines and template(s) to field review each identified highway 

section with crashes and determine appropriateness of installing edge line rumble stripes or 

shoulder rumble strips now or deferring until the next overlay. District personnel will 

assemble District wide or county wide contract plans to implement the improvements. 

Schedule: Sections and routes identified for edge line rumble stripes or shoulder installations identified within 

12 months of acceptance of the Plan. 

4. Contracts will be let and improvements will be implemented. 

Schedule: All identified edge line/shoulder rumble strip sections and routes implemented within 30 months of 

acceptance of the Plan. 

Select Tree Removal in Rural Areas to Reduce Future Tree Crash Occurrences 

The fixed object associated with the greatest number of roadway departure fatalities is trees. Most 

of these fatalities occur in rural areas. One of the challenges associated with this initiative is that tree 

removal alone may not be the sole low-cost countermeasure that needs to be implemented; removal 

or relocation of other vulnerable fixed objects also needs to be considered. In addition, many 

vulnerable trees may be located beyond the ditch line and on private property. Processes need to be 

developed to work with the property owner to allow for removal (or replace the tree at a less 

vulnerable location or with more crash-impact-friendly shrubbery). In addition, some sections with 

high numbers of tree crashes will not be suitable for tree removal, and alternate countermeasures 

such as edge line rumble strips or delineation may be considered to reduce the likelihood of tree 

collisions. 

A hierarchy of questions that need asked in identifying the appropriate countermeasure to reduce 

future tree crashes is as follows: 

 Should/can the tree be removed? 

 If the answer is yes, are there other improvements needed to improve the safety of the 

section such as removing other vulnerable fixed objects and minor re-grading? 
 19 

 Also, if the tree is off the right of way, can arrangements be made to accommodate the 

property owner to have the tree removed? 

 If the tree can't be removed, would shielding result in a significant safety benefit? If shielding 

will not substantially improve safety, can other alternatives such as applying edge line rumble 

strips and wrapping delineation around the tree reduce the potential for future tree crashes? 

The number of sections, crash threshold, costs, and safety impact of this initiative is provided in 

Table 16. 

Table 16: Tree Removal/Safety Enhancements – Tree Crashes (Any Harmful Event) – State 

Rural Roads (2004-2008) 

Section Length

Threshold Crash Level (5 Years) Number of Sections Number of Targeted 5 Year Crashes on Sections Estimated Number of Improvements 1Construction Costs ($ Million) 2Fatalities per 100 Crashes Incapacitating Injury Crashes per 100 Crashes Annual Targeted Crash Reduction 3Annual Estimated Incapacitating Injury Crash Reduction Annual Estimated Fatality Reduction 

3,000 feet 4 192 1,039 154 3.85 4.42 10.32 83 8.6 3.67 

1 Assumes 80% of locations can be improved by tree removal, other improvements to reduce roadway departure frequencies in 

the vicinity of the struck trees, or reduced speed to reduce severity. A field review will be needed to determine the appropriate 

countermeasure. 

2 Assumes an average cost of $25,000 per section. 

3 An average CMF of 0.50 is used as an overall average for all possible tree countermeasures. 

The basic steps and schedule to implement this initiative are as follows: 

1. Gain management acceptance to the Roadway Departure Safety Implementation Plan. 

2. Traffic Headquarters will develop guidelines and a standard template treatment for tree 

removal/treatments and issue them to District personnel for implementation. Note that the 

guidance will provide a process to consider removal of trees both within and beyond rightof-way limits; property owner considerations; other complementary roadway departure 

countermeasures such as the removal of other fixed objects adjacent to the trees and minor 

re-grading to create a clear zone; identification and options for considering environmental 

and historical factors associated with the vulnerable trees; and a set of alternate 

countermeasures including edge line rumble strips and tree delineation to reduce the 

likelihood of tree crashes should the tree not be removed. 

Schedule: Guidelines issued within 9 months of acceptance of the Plan. 

3. District personnel will use guidelines and template(s) to field review each identified tree 

section with crashes and determine appropriate tree removal or mitigation improvements. 

District personnel will assemble District wide or county wide contract plans to implement 

the improvements. 

Schedule: Improvement sets identified for all identified sections within 18 months of acceptance of the Plan 

4. Contracts will be let and improvements will be implemented. 
 20 

Schedule: All identified improvements implemented within 36 months of acceptance of the Plan. 

Comprehensive Education, Enforcement, and Engineering (3-E) Improvements 

This initiative involves a three pronged approach involving the actions summarized below. 

A. Targeted Corridor Education and Enforcement (No or Very Minor Infrastructure 

Improvements) 

This initiative combines education and enforcement actions on corridors stretching 5-miles in length 

that have high concentrations of roadway departure crashes involving speeding and unbelted drivers 

and roadway departure crashes involving alcohol. 

The data was analyzed to identify 9,000-ft. sections of highway that have concentrations of speed or 

unbelted driver crashes both on and off the Interstate as well as concentrations of alcohol-related 

crashes. The speed and unbelted driver crashes were combined because the enforcement tactics to 

impact these types of violations are complementary. Alcohol-related crashes are concentrated in the 

late evening-early morning hours and the enforcement tactics emphasize sobriety checkpoints. 

Therefore, the alcohol enforcement sections were separated from the other enforcement sections. 

Summaries of the targeted sections for education and enforcement are provided in Tables 17 

through 19. 

Table 17: Enhanced Corridor Enforcement – Roadway Departure Crashes – Speed-Related 

or Unbelted Driver – State Roads – Interstates (2004-2008) 

Section Length 

(9,000 ft)

Threshold Crash Level (5 Years) Number of Sections Number of Targeted 5 Year Crashes on Sections Estimated Number of Improvements 1Construction Costs ($ Million) 2Fatalities per 100 Crashes Incapacitating Injury Crashes per 100 Crashes Annual Targeted Crash Reduction 3Annual Estimated Incapacitating Injury Crash Reduction Annual Estimated Fatality Reduction 

State Rural 15 13 241 10 0.3 4.98 7.30 6 .44 .30 

State Urban 30 13 558 10 0.3 2.31 6.65 13 .86 .30 

Total - - - 20 0.6 - - 19 1.30 0.60 

1 Assumes 80% of locations will have sufficient enforcement capabilities to implement enhanced enforcement (at least 10 hours 

per week of highly visible active enforcement per section). 

2 Assumes an average annual enforcement cost of $30,000 per section. 

3 A CMF of 0.85 is used as an overall average for all possible enhanced corridor enforcement countermeasures. Estimated 

from speed and safety belt enforcement effectiveness information in NHTSA’s Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety 

Countermeasure Guide For State Highway Safety Offices

(http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20Control/Articles/Associated%20Files/811081.pdf). 
 21 

Table 18: Enhanced Corridor Enforcement – Roadway Departure Crashes – Speed-Related 

or Unbelted Driver – Not Interstates (2004-2008) 

Section Length 

(9,000 ft)

Threshold Crash Level (5 Years) Number of Sections Number of Targeted 5 Year Crashes on Sections Estimated Number of Improvements 1Construction Costs ($ Million) 2Fatalities per 100 Crashes Incapacitating Injury Crashes per 100 Crashes Annual Targeted Crash Reduction 3Annual Estimated Incapacitating Injury CrashReduction Annual Estimated Fatality Reduction 

State Rural 10 115 1,608 92 2.76 7.10 11.64 38 4.4 2.70 

State Urban 20 22 638 17 0.51 3.77 8.76 15 1.3 0.57 

Local 20 - - - - 2.07 5.65 - - - 

Total - - - 109 3.27 - - 53 5.7 3.07 

1 Assumes 80% of locations will have sufficient enforcement capabilities to implement enhanced enforcement (at least 10 hours 

per week of highly visible active enforcement per section). 

2 Assumes an average annual enforcement cost of $30,000 per section. 

3 A CMF of 0.85 is used as an overall average for all possible enhanced corridor enforcement countermeasures. Estimated 

from speed and safety belt enforcement effectiveness information in NHTSA’s Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety 

Countermeasure Guide For State Highway Safety Offices

(http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20Control/Articles/Associated%20Files/811081.pdf). 

Table 19: Enhanced Corridor Enforcement – Roadway Departure Crashes – Alcohol-Related 

– State Roads (2004-2008) 

Section Length 

(9,000 ft)

Threshold Crash Level (5 Years) Number of Sections Number of Targeted 5 Year Crashes on Sections Estimated Number of Improvements 1Construction Costs ($ Million) 2Fatalities per 100 Crashes Incapacitating Injury Crashes per 100 Crashes Annual Targeted Crash Reduction 3Annual Estimated Incapacitating Injury Crash Reduction Annual Estimated Fatality Reduction 

State Rural 7 119 1037 99 2.97 7.27 11.97 33 3.95 2.40 

State Urban 10 27 368 20 0.6 3.57 8.75 12 1.05 0.43 

Local 10 5 79 4 0.24 3.04 7.79 3 .02 .01 

Total - - - 123 3.81 - - 38 5.02 2.84 

1 Assumes 80% of locations will have sufficient enforcement capabilities to implement enhanced alcohol enforcement (i.e., 

sobriety checkpoints). 

2 Assumes an average annual enforcement cost of $30,000 per section. 

3 A CMF of 0.80 is used as an overall average for all possible enhanced corridor enforcement countermeasures. Estimated 

from sobriety checkpoint effectiveness information in NHTSA’s Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety 

Countermeasure Guide For State Highway Safety Offices

(http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20Control/Articles/Associated%20Files/811081.pdf). 

The crash data has identified XX Interstate and XXX non-Interstate sections of highway of 9,000 ft. 

in length that have high concentrations of speed-related or unbelted injury crashes. In addition, 

XXX sections with high concentrations of alcohol-related roadway departure crashes have been 
 22 

identified. This effort involves inviting representative of the police personnel responsible for 

enforcement along these sections to initiate a coordinated education and enforcement approach by 

using a combination of targeted education and highly visible enforcement strategies. The objective 

of the effort is to reduce roadway departure fatalities on these sections by a minimum of XX 

percent. Some minor infrastructure improvements to provide roadside areas where enforcement 

personnel can safely pull cited drivers off the highway may also be needed. The effort begins with a 

preliminary meeting with the Governor’s Highway Safety Representative to determine potential 

sources of revenue to finance the initiative. Following funding source analyses, meetings are 

arranged with appropriate police organizations responsible for enforcement along the identified 

sections of highway to determine interest in initiating a comprehensive education and enforcement 

initiative to reduce the number of future speed- and alcohol-related crashes and the number of 

drivers and occupants that have been severely injured or killed because they weren’t buckled up. 

Key Steps for Implementing Education and Enforcement Safety Corridors 

Phase 1 – Preparatory 

1. Perform an analysis of the crash data along the corridor to identify crash patterns that can be 

addressed by targeted education or enforcement actions. 

2. Determine if there are safety grants that could be used to improve safety along the corridor 

and if adjustments to these grants should be considered to reduce the potential for future 

roadway departure crashes through an increase in targeted enforcement in the corridor. 

Phase II – Meet with Appropriate Police Personnel 

1. Arrange a meeting with police responsible for enforcement on the corridors. 

2. Apprise the police of the concentration of targeted driver-related crashes on the candidate 

corridors. 

3. Request a written commitment to enhance enforcement on the identified corridors. Indicate 

that the STATE DOT will consider placing special “targeted enforcement” signing on the 

corridor if a written commitment of at least 10 to 15 hours of visible and active enforcement 

directed at the driver violations cited in the targeted crashes is provided on the corridor. 

4. Advise the meeting participants, if a written commitment for enforcement will be provided, 

that the data and the increased enforcement should be shared with the media in a joint press 

conference. 

5. Collectively agree on an initial set of corridors on which to implement the enforcement 

measures, develop a coordinated strategy and schedule to announce the information to the 

media, and begin visible enforcement. Also, agree on an education component to apprise 

motorists of the increased targeted enforcement on the corridor, including the potential to 

install targeted enforcement signs. Agree to a 6 to 12 month follow-up meeting to evaluate 

the impact of the initiative and determine whether further actions are needed and if the 

initiative should be expanded to remaining corridors. 
 23 

Phase III – Implementation 

1. Meet with magistrates or District justices who have jurisdiction over the selected traffic 

corridor, explain the driver safety crash concerns on the corridor, and ask for their input and 

cooperation when visible enforcement begins. 

2. Install the targeted enforcement corridor signs if appropriate. 

3. Begin visible enforcement. 

4. Hold a joint DOT/police press event for the corridor. 

5. Periodically meet with police and magistrates to monitor enforcement levels and obtain any 

insight from police on observed changes in driving habits as a result of the added 

enforcement and signing. If anything newsworthy results, provide a press release. 

Phase IV – Evaluation 

1. After a full year of crash data becomes available, perform a “before and after” comparison 

of crashes on the corridor that may indicate a change in targeted crashes that the 

enforcement has reduced (e.g., alcohol, speeding, unbelted) in the “after” period to the crash 

statistics from the “before” period.1

 Continue monitoring until 3 years of “after” period data 

are available for analysis, and then complete a before/after study. 

2. Potentially include a “before and after” comparison of speed distributions and a safety belt 

survey to determine if high-end speeding is being reduced and if more people are buckling 

up on the route. 

3. Meet with the police, share the evaluation information, and make a determination as to 

whether the initiative should be expanded to the remaining corridors.

4. Methodology as outlined in Chapter 9 of the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) should be used 

for the assessment of safety changes related to the countermeasures applied. It can also help 

influence future decisions related to funding of these suggested countermeasures (see 

chapter 7 of HSM).

Table 20: Key Implementation Steps for Roadway Departure Education and Enforcement 

Strategies (2004-2008) 

Step Organization Responsible for 

Step Schedule 

1. Phase 1. Review the corridors, meet with the 

Governor’s Safety Representative, identify potential grant 

opportunities for education and enforcement initiatives in 

the five areas. 

Traffic Engineering Division, 

Governors Safety Representative 2 months 

2. Determine the level of 402 funding that may be 

available to fund the initiative; also explore the use of 

other funding sources should a shortfall exist. 

Traffic Engineering Division, 

Governors Safety Representative 4 months 

 

1 Note that a single year of crash data in the “after” period will not provide enough information for statistically 

significant analysis. 
 24 

Step Organization Responsible for 

Step Schedule 

3. Finalize funds available and select corridors to 

consider for heightened enforcement. 

Traffic Engineering Division, 

Governors Safety Representative 6 months 

2. Phase 2. Meet with State and Local Police in selected 

corridors, gain commitments, and finalize the initial set of 

corridors. 

Traffic Engineering Division, 

Governors Safety Representative 6 months 

3. Phase 3. Implement the education and enforcement 

initiative on designated corridors. 

Traffic Engineering Division, 

Governors Safety Representative, 

State and local police 

33 months 

4. Phase 4. Evaluate the results, take any lessons 

learned, and make a decision to expand, expand with 

modifications, or terminate education and enforcement. 

Reference the Highway Safety Manual for valid designs 

and statistical techniques for conducting these 

evaluations. 

Traffic Engineering Division, 

Governors Safety Representative, 

Highway Safety Executive 

Committee 

36 months 

5. If decision is to expand or expand with modifications, 

proceed with Phase 1 through 4 for additional corridors. 

Traffic Engineering Division, Safety, 

Governors Representative 39 months 

 

B. Targeted 3-E Engineering, Education, and Enforcement for Corridors 

Table 21 identifies 5-mile long corridors with the highest concentrations of severe roadway 

departure crashes that are candidates for combined education, enforcement, and engineering 

initiatives. 

Table 21: Candidate Corridors for 3-E (Engineering, Education, Enforcement) Initiatives 

(2004-2008) 

County Name Route Name Number of Roadway 

Departure Fatalities 

Number of RD 

Incapacitating Injury 

Crashes 

Total Roadway 

Departure Crashes 

Johnson US 555 17 38 262 

Emerson ST 867 14 11 187 

Jefferson ST 5309 13 40 525 

Hickory US 16 9 19 162 

Hammer ST 5 9 6 158 

Washington CR 54 9 15 185 

Cobain ST 85 9 11 166 

Hazard US 14 9 9 173 

Marshall US 54 9 10 238 

Mathers ST 212 9 15 174 

The crash data has identified XX State route corridors that have had X or more roadway departure 

fatalities over the past 5 years. The intent of this objective is to advance a set of 3-E initiatives on 

three of these corridors to reduce the potential for future severe roadway departure crashes. For 
 25 

each of the corridors, this initiative will have as its objective a reduction in corridor roadway 

departure fatalities and severe injuries by a minimum of 25 percent using a combination of low-cost 

infrastructure improvements coupled with targeted education and enforcement initiatives. While the 

selection of the corridor has been based upon high frequencies of severe roadway departure crashes, 

the approach may be broader and encompass other corridor concerns such as intersections, midblock pedestrian problems, and driver behavioral problems, including driving while intoxicated, lack 

of safety belts, and speeding. 

The effort begins with a thorough analysis of the crash characteristics in the corridor to better 

understand the problems that need to be addressed and relate the patterns to potential 

countermeasures. A multi-disciplinary team is then formed to review the crash analysis, discuss the 

safety problems on the corridor, jointly field review the corridor to gain personal and group 

consensus of the major safety issues, and collectively develop an overall set of 3-E countermeasures 

to improve safety on the corridor. After the countermeasures have been identified and approved by 

the agencies involved, staged and coordinated implementation of the recommendations begins. The 

team performs oversight and monitors the implementation activities to insure that substantive safety 

progress along the corridor is being made. 

A pilot effort of three corridors will be initiated first. The pilot will be evaluated by the Executive 

Committee for Highway Safety, and, if considered beneficial, will be expanded to the remaining 

corridors incorporating lessons learned from the pilot. 

The goal of the corridor safety study is to reduce fatal and disabling injury crashes on designated 

high-volume arterials exhibiting high frequencies of severe crashes using low-cost, near-term 

solutions combined with highly visible enforcement, education, and emergency medical service 

initiatives. 

Corridor safety studies are usually conducted using a team approach. The corridor team is normally 

comprised of at least the following representatives: 

 District Traffic and Safety Engineer. 

 District Press Officer. 

 District Maintenance Manager or designee. 

 Representative of State or local police responsible for enforcement on the corridor. 

 Local government representative. 

Additional team members may also include the Local Emergency Medical Services (EMS) 

coordinator, a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) representative, and a highway design 

representative. 

Once a corridor has been identified for a study, the District Traffic or Safety Engineer should 

perform an analysis of the crash data along the corridor to identify crash patterns that can be 

addressed by low-cost countermeasures and education/enforcement actions. All cluster lists need to 

be reviewed to identify specific locations within the corridor that appear on one or more of the 

cluster lists. 

After the crash analysis is completed, the corridor safety team is convened to review and discuss the 

crash analysis, findings, and safety concerns along the corridor from each member’s perspective. The 

team then conducts a field review of the corridor, usually in one or two vehicles, to assess areas of 

concern defined from the crash analysis and team discussions. The team then reconvenes and 
 26 

reaches consensus on a set of countermeasures and initiatives that have strong potential to reduce 

future severe crashes. 

The District Traffic and Safety Engineer and the District Press Officer take the results of the team 

field review meeting and prepare a cost estimate and an assessment of the probable safety impacts 

and cost effectiveness of implementing the recommended improvements. A brief report and 

tentative implementation schedule are prepared and used for programming cost-effective 

improvements.

Table 22: Key Implementation Steps for 3-E Corridor Enhancements 

Step Organization Responsible for Step Schedule 

1. Review 10 corridors and select three of the 

corridors to pilot and lead the implementation. 

Traffic Engineering Division, Governors 

safety rep, District Traffic and Safety 

Engineers 

3 months 

2. Analyze data for the corridors selected, 

investigating all major crash patterns, and 

prepare a report of findings. 

Traffic Engineering Division, Governors 

safety rep, Regional and District Traffic 

and Safety Engineers 

6 months 

3. Select a multidisciplinary team for each 

corridor to determine actions to reduce future 

crashes. 

District Traffic and Safety Engineer 8 months 

4. Hold meeting of multi-disciplinary teams, 

complete field reviews of corridors, identify set of 

comprehensive 3E improvements, and prepare 

brief corridor reports summarizing actions and 

improvements proposed to reduce future 

fatalities. As part of the report, estimated costs 

and schedules are also prepared. 

Multi-disciplinary Team 12 months 

5. Agencies approve the report, including 

approving their role as defined in the report. Affected Organizations 14 months 

6. Begin implementing report, including education 

and enforcement activities, and developing and 

letting contract to implement infrastructure 

improvements. 

Affected Organizations 30 months 

7. Evaluate corridor approach, take any lessons 

learned, and make a decision to expand, expand 

with modifications, or terminate corridor safety 

approach. 

Highway Safety Executive Committee 42 months 

8. If decision is to expand or expand with 

modifications, proceed with steps 2 through 7 for 

additional corridors. 

Traffic Safety Unit, Governors safety 

rep, Regional and Division Safety 

Engineers 

48 months 
 27 

C. Targeted Engineering, Education, and Enforcement for Cities 

Combined education, enforcement, and engineering initiatives in municipalities which have the 

highest frequencies of roadway departure crashes. 

Table 23: Summary of Roadway Departure Crashes by Major City (2004-2008) 

City Name Number of Roadway 

Departure Fatalities 

Number of Roadway 

Departure Incapacitating 

Injury Crashes 

Total Roadway 

Departure Crashes 

Youngstown 160 595 11,688 

Bree 66 247 7,501 

Old New York 58 176 2,385 

New Amsterdam 55 114 3,307 

The crash data has identified the four cities that have the largest number of roadway departure 

fatalities. Targeting 3-E for cities involves inviting one large and one mid-size to initiate an area-wide 

3E approach. The objective of the effort is to reduce city roadway departure fatalities by a minimum 

of 10 percent using a combination of low-cost infrastructure improvements coupled with targeted 

education and enforcement strategies that extend beyond those that may be implemented in other 

systematic countermeasure deployments. 

The effort begins with a preliminary meeting with city officials to determine interest in initiating a 

comprehensive roadway departure safety initiative. If interested, a thorough “clean up” of the crash 

data for roadway departure crashes on State and local roads within the urban area is completed such 

that clusters of crashes can be accurately combined. After the data is cleaned, a thorough analysis of 

the characteristics of crashes in the city is performed with the goal of understanding the problems 

that need to be addressed and relating the patterns to potential countermeasures. A city-wide, multidisciplinary team is then formed to review the crash analysis, discuss the roadway departure safety 

problems in the city, jointly field review the selected problem areas to gain personal and group 

consensus of the major safety issues, and collectively develop an overall set of 3-E countermeasures 

to improve safety in the city. After the countermeasures have been identified and approved by the 

agencies involved, staged and coordinated implementation of the recommendations begins. The 

team performs oversight and monitors the implementation activities to insure that substantive safety 

progress is being made. 

Table 24: Key Implementation Steps for Roadway Departure City-Wide 3E Improvements 

Step Organization Responsible for Step Schedule 

1. Review the cities and select candidates Traffic Engineering Division, Governors 

Safety Representative 2 months 

2. Contact selected cities and determine interest. If not 

interested, go to next candidate city. Finalize pilot cities. 

Traffic Engineering Unit, Governors 

Safety Representative 6 months 

3. Analyze crash data for pilot cities, investigating all 

major roadway departure crash patterns and prepare a 

brief report of findings. 

Traffic Engineering Division, Governors 

Safety Representative 10 months 
 28 

Step Organization Responsible for Step Schedule 

4. Select a multi-disciplinary team in each selected city 

to determine actions to reduce future crashes. 

Traffic Engineering Division, District 

Traffic Engineer, Governors 

Representative and city police, 

planning, and traffic engineering 

representatives 

12 months 

5. Hold a meeting of the multi-disciplinary team, 

complete field reviews of problem and typical roadway 

departure locations, identify set of comprehensive 3E 

improvements, prepare a city set of countermeasures 

and improvements proposed to reduce future roadway 

departure fatalities by at least 10 percent. As part of the 

set of countermeasures, estimated costs and schedules 

are also prepared. 

Multi-disciplinary Team 18 months 

6. Agencies approve the set of countermeasures, 

including approval of their role as defined in the plan. Affected Organizations 21 months 

7. Implementation of countermeasures begins, including 

education and enforcement activities and development 

and letting of contract to implement infrastructure 

improvements. 

Affected Organizations 40 months 

8. Evaluate city comprehensive approach, take any 

lessons learned, and make a decision to expand, 

expand with modifications, or terminate city 

comprehensive safety approach. 

Traffic Engineering Unit, Governors 

Safety Representative 44 months 

9. If decision is to expand or expand with modifications, 

proceed with steps 2 through 9 for additional cities. 

Traffic Engineering Unit, Safety, 

Governors Representative 

48 months 

 

Deployment of Traditional Roadway Departure Countermeasures 

Currently roadway departure improvements are generated within the HSIP program by identifying 

and studying crash locations that have high crash rankings. Two initiatives will be undertaken within 

the traditional roadway departure program as follows: 

 In addition to candidate locations generated from the existing formulae, other potential 

roadway departure-specific improvement types under the traditional program are as follows: 

a. Median barriers or other improvements on full access control highways with remaining 

head-on and opposing-flow crashes (see Table 25). 

b. High friction surfaces on high-speed highways with wet pavement crashes or highway 

sections that require higher friction values. 

A summary of the scope of these deployments and set of key steps needed to implement each of 

these initiatives effectively is included in Tables 26 through 28. 
 29 

Table 25: Median Barrier – Head-On and Sideswipe, Opposite Direction Crashes – Raised 

Mountable, Flush, and Depressed Median Types – State Rural Roads (2004-2008) 

Section Length 

(6,000 ft)

Threshold Crash Level (5 Years) Number of Sections Number of Targeted 5 Year Crashes on Sections Estimated Number of Improvements 1Construction Costs ($ Million) 2Fatalities per 100 Crashes Incapacitating Injury Crashes per 100 Crashes Annual Targeted Crash Reduction 3Annual Estimated Incapacitating Injury Crash Reduction Annual Estimated Fatality Reduction 

State Rural Roads 2 61 161 49 5.88 11.68 11.11 26 2.9 3.04 

1 Assumes 80% of locations can be improved. 

2 Assumes an average cost of $120,000 per section. 

3 A CMF of 0.20 in terms of Incapacitating Injury Crashes and fatalities is used. 

Table 26: Key Steps to Consider Median Enhancements to Reduce Head-On and Opposing 

Side-Swipe Crashes on Restricted Access High-Speed Highways 

Step Organization 

Responsible for Step Schedule 

1. Review each of the identified highway sections to determine 

the appropriateness of installing weak post-median barrier. If not 

appropriate (some flushed narrow paved medians may not be 

appropriate), consider edge line rumble strips on the median 

side to reduce frequency of crossovers. 

District Traffic Engineer 6 months 

2. Select improvements from field reviews and program. District Traffic Engineer 9 months 

3. Design and let contracts for construction. District Office 18 months 

4. Let projects are completed and opened to traffic. District Office 36 months 

Table 27: High Friction Surfaces – Roadway Departure Crashes – Wet – State Rural Roads 

(2004-2008) 

Section Length

Threshold Crash Level (5 Years) 1Number of Sections Number of Targeted 5 Year Crashes on Sections Estimated Number of Improvements 2Construction Costs ($ Million) 3Fatalities per 100 Crashes Incapacitating Injury Crashes per 100 Crashes Annual Targeted Crash Reduction 4Annual Estimated Incapacitating Injury Crash Reduction Annual Estimated Fatality Reduction 

3,000 feet 8 227 2,847 159 6.81 1.09 4.15 200 8.3 2.18 

1 Also need a wet to total crash ratio of at least 0.35 (average 0.22) and a skid number of 30 or less. 

2 Assumes 70% of locations will be tested below a skid number of 30 and can be improved. 

3 Assumes an average cost of $30,000 per section. 

4 A CMF of 0.50 is used. 

 
 30 

Table 28: Key Steps to Consider Median Enhancements To Reduce Head-On and 

Opposing Side-Swipe Crashes on Restricted Access High-Speed Highways 

Step Organization 

Responsible for Step Schedule 

1. Develop guidelines for the use of micro-textures, epoxies, and 

other high-friction surfaces to be applied on sections of highway 

with high incidences of wet pavement crashes. Also establish 

guidelines for including cross section improvements if severe 

wheel rutting exists. 

District Traffic 

Engineering, 

Maintenance, and 

Design Divisions 

6 months 

2. Arrange for skid tests to be conducted to determine if the skid 

number is below existing levels for adequate friction.

District Traffic Engineer 9 months 

3. Field review each of the identified highway sections which 

have skid numbers below established levels to determine the 

appropriateness of installing a high friction courser and the limits 

of improvement. Identify the skid treatment type based upon the 

guidelines issued and estimate costs. 

District Traffic Engineer 12-18 months 

4. Compile District wide skid candidate improvement selection 

and program improvements

District Traffic Engineer 18 months 

5. Once programmed, design and let District or area wide 

contracts for construction.

District Office 30 months 

6. Let projects are completed and opened to traffic. District Office 42 months 

Roadway Departure Countermeasures on Local Roads 

Only one roadway departure countermeasure will be pursued on local roads at this time: sign and 

marking enhancements on local road curves. Centerline and edge line rumble strips on local roads 

may be pursued at a later date depending on the success of the local curve signing program and the 

success of the centerline/edge line rumble strip program on State roads. Since local roads do not 

have a referencing system, candidate local roads for curve sign and marking enhancements was 

based upon the total number of curve crashes on each local road. Only those local roads that have 

three or more crashes per mile during the study period will be considered for further analysis. 

The summary of local roads that meet these criteria is as follows: 
 31 

Table 29: Enhanced Signs and Markings for Curves – Curve Roadway Departure Crashes – 

Local Roads (2004-2008) 

Section Length 

(3,000 ft) 

Threshold Curve Crash Level (5 Years) Number of Local Roads Number of Targeted 5 Year Crashes on Local Roads Estimated Numberof Improvements 1Construction Costs ($ Million) 2Incapacitating Injury Crashes per 100 Crashes Fatalities per 100 Crashes Annual Targeted Crash Reduction 3Annual Estimated Incapacitating Injury Crash Reduction Annual Estimated Fatality Reduction 

Curve Crashes 5 189 1,833 151 1.51 4.43 1.01 88 3.9 0.89 

1 Assumes 80% of curves can be improved. 

2 Assumes an average cost of $10,000 per local road (multiple curves on each local road to be improved) 

3 Assumes 80% of curve crashes occur on curves to be improved by sign and markings. A CMF of 0.70 is used (oversized, left, 

and right fluorescent yellow, advance warning signs; chevrons; slow and XX mph pavement markings; center and edge lines). 

Thus there are XXX local road candidates for curve sign and marking enhancements. It is assumed 

that either the District Traffic Engineer or a trained LTAP safety engineer will perform the analysis 

on each of these roads. The analysis will first attempt to locate the curve crashes to specific curves 

on the local road. Only those curves which have X or X or more curve crashes in five years will be 

considered for improvements. The improvements will be equivalent to the same type of sign and 

marking improvement on state highways. 

Key Implementation Steps 

The key steps necessary to implement this initiative and realize the safety benefits of the 

improvements, organizations responsible for each key step, and the schedule to fully implement this 

activity are shown in Table 30. 

Table 30: Key Implementation Steps for Basic Set of Sign and Marking Improvements – 

Local Curves 

Step Organization Responsible for 

Step Schedule 

1. Determine if Local Road Curve Assessment is to be 

conducted by District Traffic Engineer or LTAP coordinator 

Traffic Division District Traffic 

Engineers 

2 months 

2. If decision is to use LTAP coordinator, adjust LTAP scope of 

work and contract to conduct necessary work. Train LTAP 

Safety Coordinator to analyze curves for improvement. Utilize 

same threshold levels and sign/pavement marking 

enhancements for state curves for local curves 

Traffic Division, District Traffic 

Engineers 

6 months 

3. Determine if federal safety funds will be used to implement 

improvements. If so, update processes if needed for this type of 

work. 

Traffic Division 8 months 

4. Develop a template, guidelines and requirements for 

processes for use of Federal safety funds on local curves 

Traffic Division 8 months 
 32 

Step Organization Responsible for 

Step Schedule 

5. Perform an assessment of each identified local road with five 

or more curves and identify sets of improvements. District Traffic Engineer or 

LTAP Safety Engineer 

14 months 

6. Assemble curve improvements into a contract package. 

Execute necessary agreements with local governments. Let 

District-wide or county-wide local curve sign and marking 

contracts. 

Districts 18 months 

7. Complete curve sign and marking improvements Districts 30 months 

8. Assess success of local curve initiative and edge line / 

centerline rumble strip program on State highways. Based upon 

assessment, make a decision to expand edge, centerline rumble 

strips onto local roads. 

Traffic Division 36 months 

Incorporation of Low-Cost, Cost-Effective Countermeasures at Crash Locations 

within the Limits of Work for Programmed Projects 

A considerable number of project types are implemented throughout the state. Within the contract 

limits of some these projects, high-crash sections exist where cost-effective, low-cost 

countermeasures may be considered for incorporation into the project to reduce the potential for 

future crashes. This initiative is to develop and implement a process to identify programmed 

projects that have crash histories within the geographic location of the project and determine if lowcost, cost-effective safety improvements should be incorporated into the project to reduce the 

potential of future crashes. 

There are a number of issues that need to be addressed for this initiative to be successful, including: 

1. Type of project on which to consider incorporating the low-cost safety 

countermeasures – Reconstruction projects will probably address most of the safety issues 

that low-cost countermeasures are designed to address. Specialty project types such as 

transportation enhancements may not be appropriate to consider for incorporating low-cost 

safety measures (except if the project has landscaping, tree, and shrubbery improvements). 

Bridge projects are usually limited to the bridge itself and may restrict the potential to 

incorporate these countermeasures into them. Resurfacing and 3-R projects offer the 

greatest opportunity for incorporation of low cost countermeasures since the primary 

improvement is normally limited to providing a smooth and structurally sound surface. 

2. Type of low-cost countermeasures to consider for incorporation into projects – The 

predominant low-cost countermeasures that need to be considered for inclusion in 

programmed projects should meet the minimum crash thresholds defined for the systematic 

low-cost countermeasure initiative and include the following: 

a. Shoulder or edge line rumble strips in rural areas. 

b. Centerline rumble strips in rural areas. 

c. Tree removal in rural areas. 
 33 

d. Use of the safety edge under the following conditions: at the edge of pavement if a 

non-paved shoulder is specified, at the outer edge of a paved shoulder, and during 

construction if a lift exceeding 2 inches will be open to traffic for a period of time. 

e. Use of an micro-texture or similar high skid surface on sections which have X or 

more wet pavement crashes within a 3,000 foot section, a wet/total crash ratio above 

22 percent, and a pavement cross section that is relatively flat, susceptible to 

accumulating water, and would not be corrected by the pavement overlay. 

3. Funding – The method to finance safety improvements needs to be clarified within the 

state. The two basic options are to fund the safety as part of the existing project funding or 

fund the safety portion with HSIP funding. 

4. Process – The process by which low-cost, cost-effective safety countermeasures are to be 

considered and included in other projects needs to be developed between the divisions 

involved. Some of the questions that need to be addressed include the following: 

a. When in the design development stage should the consideration be given? 

b. Who should identify projects that have crash histories above the threshold? Who will 

perform the analyses to determine the appropriate countermeasure? 

c. Who will make the decision to include or exclude? 

d. What can be done to easily and efficiently incorporate designated low cost 

improvements into the plan? 

Key Implementation Steps 

The key steps needed to effectively consider the initiative are shown in Table 31. 

Table 31: Key Implementation Steps for Considering the Inclusion of Low-Cost, CostEffective Countermeasures in Other Programmed Projects 

Step Organization Responsible 

for Step 

Completion Date (Months 

After Implementation Plan 

Acceptance) 

1. Finalize a list of issues that need to be addressed to 

consider inclusion of low-cost, cost-effective 

countermeasures in other projects. 

Traffic Division 4 months 

2. Establish a meeting between the Design, Maintenance, 

and Traffic Engineering Divisions to further explore the 

inclusion of low-cost, cost-effective safety 

countermeasures into other projects, including discussing 

identified issues that need to be addressed. 

Traffic Division 4 months 

3. Hold a second meeting between the Divisions to reach 

consensus on a process to identify projects where low 

cost countermeasures should be considered for inclusion; 

mechanisms to fund justified safety elements to add to the 

project; and revisions to existing process to consider and 

incorporate safety elements efficiently into projects under 

design. 

Traffic Division, Design, and 

Maintenance 6 months 

4. Jointly develop an action plan to implement the results 

of the meeting. Traffic Division, Design, and 8 months 
 34 

Step Organization Responsible 

for Step 

Completion Date (Months 

After Implementation Plan 

Acceptance) 

Maintenance 

5. Adopt the action plan and begin implementation of the 

action plan. 

Traffic Division, Design, and 

Maintenance 10 months 

6. Evaluate effectiveness of Action Plan and modify as 

appropriate 

Traffic Division, Design, and 

Maintenance 22 months 

Deployment and Evaluation of New Roadway Departure Countermeasures 

This initiative involves the limited and careful evaluation and potential deployment of new roadway 

departure countermeasures that offer the potential to reduce roadway departure crashes and fatalities 

beyond that which can be expected from existing countermeasures. One major roadway departure 

countermeasure has been identified that falls into this category: traffic calming to reduce high end 

speeds at selected rural sites. 

THE STATE has minimal experience with the proposed new countermeasures. In addition, the 

actual effectiveness of rural traffic calming countermeasures has not been adequately validated. 

Nevertheless, rural traffic calming countermeasures fill gaps that the existing countermeasures 

cannot. STATE DOT will proceed cautiously with the deployment of these countermeasures to 

reduce risk of failure, concentrating initial deployment on those sections with high numbers of 

roadway departure crashes that the countermeasure is designated to impact. A brief evaluation/ 

implementation plan will be developed for the countermeasure that will include the limited 

deployment of an adequate number of improvements to identify implementation issues and any 

beneficial or adverse operational impacts. Any implementation issues or concerns identified from 

this initial deployment will be addressed and resolved before further implementation of the 

countermeasure is considered. Once all identified issues are resolved, sufficient additional 

improvements of the countermeasure will occur to improve the estimate of the effectiveness of the 

countermeasure in reducing targeted roadway departure crashes. When a better estimate of the 

effectiveness of the countermeasure is available, the countermeasure will be deployed cost 

effectively, depending upon the availability of funds and other priorities. 

The extent to which traffic calming may be applied to the state’s highways is provided in the 

following table, which identifies sections of roadway with high incidences of speed-related crashes. 
 35 

Table 32: Infrastructure Traffic Calming Measures to Reduce Speeding-Related Crashes – 

State and Local Roads (2004-2008) 

Locality and Section Length 

Threshold Speeding Crash Level (5 Years) Number of Sections Number of Targeted 5 Year Crashes on Sections Estimated Number of Improvements 1Construction Costs ($ Million) 2Fatalities per 100 Crashes Incapacitating Injury Crashes per 100 Crashes Annual Targeted Crash Reduction 3Annual Estimated Incapacitating Injury Crash Reduction Annual Estimated Fatality Reduction 

Speeding Crashes (9000 ft) – 

State Rural Roads 15 68 1558 52 3.89 3.86 7.95 75 5.97 2.90 

Speeding Crashes (9,000 ft) – 

State Urban Roads 15 53 1335 42 1.03 2.08 4.72 64 3.02 1.33 

Speeding Crashes (9,000 ft) – 

Local Roads 15 6 142 5 013 2.07 5.65 7 0.39 0.15 

Total - 127 - 99 5.05 - - 146 9.36 4.38 

1 Assumes 80% of locations can be improved by incorporating speed reduction traffic calming measures through pavement 

markings. No Interstate Highways included. 

2 Assumes an average cost of $25,000 per section. 

3 An average CMF of 0.70 is used as an overall average for all possible speed reduction measures. 

Types of traffic calming may be found in FHWA Report HRT-08-067. In addition the use of 

peripheral transverse pavement markings on a continuous section rather than for a point specific 

location should be considered to reduce excessive speeds on throughout a section of roadway. 

The key steps that need to be taken to consider these enhancements are as follows:

Table 33: Key Steps to Evaluate New Roadway Departure Countermeasures 

Step Organization Responsible for Step Schedule 

1. Review FHWA HRT-08-067 Traffic Calming on Main 

Roads Through Rural Communities and identify appropriate 

rural traffic calming measures to pilot. 

Traffic Engineering Division, 9 months 

2. Identify countermeasures, select sites for improvements, 

and prepare an evaluation plan for each of the selected new 

countermeasures. 

Traffic Engineering Division, District 

Traffic 18 months 

3. Install the countermeasures identified in the evaluation 

plans. District Traffic Engineering 18-24 months 

4. Evaluate the countermeasure and determine if use should 

be expanded, modified, or terminated. 

Traffic Engineering Division, District 

Traffic Engineering, Highway Safety 

Executive Committee 

24-42 months 

5. If expanded, develop and provide guidance for further 

deployments. Traffic Engineering Division 48 months 

 Performance Measures 

Two types of performance measures are proposed: 
 36 

1. Production performance measures that measure performance in implementing the products, 

processes, guidelines, and projects determined in the Plan that are needed to achieve the 

goal. These are described in Table 34. 

2. Effectiveness performance measures the effectiveness of implemented countermeasures to 

reduce targeted crashes and compares actual to estimated effectiveness. These are show in 

Table 35, to be filled out by the State highway agency after implementation begins. 

Production Performance Measures 

Table 34: Production Performance Measures 

Countermeasure or Action Measure Target 

Completion Date 

Actual 

Completion 

Systematic Improvements 

Curve sign enhancements – State, rural, and urban –

systematic 

980 curves April 2012 Actual no. of 

curves 

Curve sign and marking enhancements – State flashing 

beacons –systematic 

14 curves April 2012 Actual no. of 

curves 

Centerline Rumble strips – systematic – 22 feet rural or 

greater 

234 3-mile sections October 2012 Actual centerline 

rumble strip 

miles 

Centerline rumble strips – pilot – urban & 20-22 ft. rural 

roads 

Pilot implemented October 2012 Actual pilot 

completion date 

Edge line / shoulder rumble strips (non-Interstate) – 

systematic – rural 55mph 

1,200 0.6-mile sections October 2012 Actual edge line / 

shoulder rumble 

strip miles 

Edge rumble strips – pilot – 45-50mph rural highways Pilot implemented October 2012 Actual pilot 

completion date 

Tree removal – systematic 164 0.6-mile sections April 2013 Actual no. of tree 

crash sections 

treated 

Incorporation of Low Cost, cost effective countermeasures at crash locations within the limits of work for programmed 

projects 

Action Plan to incorporate safety analysis results into 

other projects 

Action Plan completed 

and implementation 

begins 

October 2012 Actual Date 

Implementation of Action Plan 

% of other projects with 

crash histories 

incorporating safety 

treatments 

At least 50% of 

resurfacing 

projects with 

crash histories 

incorporate low 

cost safety 

Actual % 

Comprehensive Education, Enforcement, and Engineering (3-E) Improvements 

3-E Targeted Engineering, Education, and Enforcement 

Corridors 

3 Corridor Reports 

completed October 2012 Actual Date 
 37 

Countermeasure or Action Measure Target 

Completion Date 

Actual 

Completion 

3-E Targeted Engineering, Education, and Enforcement 

Corridors 

3 Corridors 

Implemented and 

Evaluated 

March 2013 Actual Date 

3-E Targeted Engineering, Education, and Enforcement 

Cities 

2 City Reports 

completed March 2011 Actual Date 

3-E Targeted Engineering, Education, and Enforcement 

Cities 

2 Cities Implemented 

and Evaluated October 2013 Actual Date 

Traditional Roadway Departure Countermeasures 

Median Improvements to reduce cross median crashes – 

Traditional Program 

32 miles of median 

sections with crashes 

protected from cross 

over crashes 

January 2013 Actual Date 

High friction surfaces for wet pavement crash sections –

Traditional Improvements 

100 low skid surfaces 

corrected July 2013 Actual Date 

New Roadway Departure Countermeasures 

Evaluation of rural traffic calming measures 

Number of new (type) 

RD countermeasures 

being evaluated 

Four new types 

under evaluation 

by March 2011 

Actual number of 

different types 

under evaluation 
 38 

Effectiveness Performance Measures– Program Effectiveness in Reducing 

Targeted Crashes 

Table 35: Performance Measures 

Countermeasure 

Year 

Improvements 

Implemented 

Year 

Evaluation 

Plan 

Developed 

Year 

Evaluation 

Completed 

Expected 

Crash 

Reduction 

Actual 

Crash 

Reduction 

Curve sign and marking enhancements – 

systematic 

 

Centerline Rumble strips – systematic 

Edge line / shoulder rumble strips (nonInterstate) – systematic  

Tree removal – systematic 

Resurfacing Projects with safety 

enhancements 

 

2-E Targeted Education and Enforcement 

Corridors 

3-E Targeted Engineering, Education, and 

Enforcement Corridors 

3-E Targeted Engineering, Education, and 

Enforcement Cities 

Median barrier 

High-friction surface 

New Traffic Calming Countermeasures 

This table is to be filled out 

by the State during 

implementation. 
 39 

Summary 

The number of roadway departure fatalities and incapacitating injuries within STATE can 

measurably decline over the next several years, but it will take a number of new and special actions, 

increased roadway departure safety emphasis, and additional funding to realize this benefit. The 

existing approach of emphasizing moderate- to high-cost improvements at high-crash roadway 

departure sections must be complemented with the deployment of a large number of low-cost, 

effective countermeasures and the use of a coordinated 3-E comprehensive approach on high-crash 

corridors and in municipalities that have a high number of roadway departure fatalities. 

Recapping, the countermeasures, deployment levels, costs, and estimated lives saved needed to 

achieve the roadway departure safety goal are shown in Table 6. While the level and direction of 

effort is well beyond that currently being pursued for roadway departure safety, the expected 

outcome – preventing over XXXX crashes, nearly XXX incapacitating injury crashes, and more than 

XX fatalities annually on STATE’S highways – is worth the investment.