ABC Agency

ROADWAY DEPARTURE

SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION 

PLAN

<Date>

INSERT PHOTOS OF CHOICE ABOVE

SOURCE: FHWA

INSERT AGENCY

LOGO HERE
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

ii

Disclaimer

This document is based on information compiled or collected pursuant to 23 U.S.C. §§130 and 

148 and other federal safety programs and is exempt from discovery or admission under 23 

U.S.C. §§402 and 409. 

The ABC Agency developed this document to aid in the identification of potential 

countermeasures for roadway departure crashes. The content included in this report provides 

potential options to help reduce the number and severity of roadway departure crashes. The 

countermeasures noted in the report represent one set of recommendations for ABC Agency but 

are not the only possible countermeasure options for the noted sites or highways.

Notice

Note: This notice section can be deleted if the USDOT is not the disseminating agency.

In the interest of information exchange, the U.S. Department of Transportation is disseminating 

this document. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information 

contained in this document. 

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or 

manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because these references are necessary to 

identify unique countermeasures for the objective of the document. 

Quality Assurance Statement

Note: This quality assurance section can be deleted or modified if the FHWA is not the agency 

that oversees the final development of this plan. 

The FHWA provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a 

manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies help to ensure and maximize 

the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews 

quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement. 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1

Roadway Departure Safety Goal ................................................................................................. 3

Background ................................................................................................................................. 3

Definition of RwD Crashes ......................................................................................................... 3

Approach ..................................................................................................................................... 4

Distribution of Roadway Departure Crashes .............................................................................. 5

Summary of RwD Crash Statistics ........................................................................................... 10

Summary of RwD Countermeasure Deployments.................................................................... 10

First Key Actions ...................................................................................................................... 17

Identifying the Promising Highway Locations to Address with Roadway Departure 

Countermeasures ........................................................................................................................ 18

Review of Low-Cost Countermeasures for the ABC Agency Highways ................................. 19

Overview of Individual Countermeasure Analysis ................................................................... 20

Toolbox of Implementation Plan Safety Enhancement Treatments ...................................... 24

Centerline Rumble Stripes / Strips............................................................................................ 24

Edgeline Rumble Stripes / Strips .............................................................................................. 27

Six-inch Wide Centerline Pavement Markings......................................................................... 29

Six-inch Wide Edgeline Pavement Markings ........................................................................... 31

Centerline Raised Pavement Markings ..................................................................................... 34

Edgeline Raised Pavement Markings ....................................................................................... 37

Lighting Improvements............................................................................................................. 39

High Friction Surface Treatments ............................................................................................. 42

Static Curve Warning Sign (Standard) ..................................................................................... 45

Enhanced Curve Warning System ............................................................................................ 48

Utility Pole Relocation .............................................................................................................. 50

Remove or Shield Tree or Fixed Objects.................................................................................. 53

Culvert End Treatment and Ditch Improvement ...................................................................... 56

Shoulder Widening with Drainage Grading Improvements ..................................................... 58

Shoulder Widening without Drainage Grading Improvements ................................................ 61

Flattening Median Sideslopes ................................................................................................... 64
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

iv

Add Barrier ............................................................................................................................... 65

Improve Barrier......................................................................................................................... 67

Install Median Barrier ............................................................................................................... 69

Education and Enforcement Campaigns ................................................................................... 71

MASH Upgrade for ABC Agency Bridge Rail Retrofit .......................................................... 71

Performance Measures ............................................................................................................... 72

Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 74

References .................................................................................................................................... 75

Appendix A .................................................................................................................................. 76

Appendix B .................................................................................................................................. 77
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Total, RwD, and fatal crashes by year (2012 – 2016). ..................................................... 3

Table 2. Jurisdiction for ABC Agency roads. ................................................................................ 6

Table 3. RwD Crashes by route and region type (<20xx-20xx>)................................................... 7

Table 4. RwD and total crashes by collision type ( <20xx-20xx> ). .............................................. 7

Table 5. RwD crashes by first harmful event (<20xx-20xx>). ....................................................... 8

Table 6. RwD crashes by lighting condition ( <20xx-20xx> ). ...................................................... 9

Table 7. RwD crashes by pavement surface condition ( <20xx-20xx> ). ...................................... 9

Table 8. Countermeasure description information and associated crash reductions. ................... 11

Table 9. RwD countermeasure strategy matrix for system rural roadways – five-year summary*.

............................................................................................................................................... 12

Table 10. RwD countermeasure strategy matrix for system urban roadways – five-year 

summary*. ............................................................................................................................. 13

Table 11. RwD countermeasure strategy matrix for local rural roadways – five-year summary*.

............................................................................................................................................... 14

Table 12. RwD strategy matrix for local urban roadways – five-year summary*. ....................... 15

Table 13. Summary of strategy matrix estimated costs and performance measures. ................... 16

Table 14. List of assessment techniques used............................................................................... 22

Table 15. Centerline rumble stripes/strips CMF values................................................................ 25

Table 16. Estimated RwD crash reductions for centerline rumble strips at undivided facilities.. 26

Table 17. Edgeline rumble stripes/strips CMF values. ................................................................. 27

Table 18. Estimated RwD crash reductions for edgeline rumble stripes/strips at rural locations. 28

Table 19. Six-Inch wide centerline pavement marking CMF values............................................ 30

Table 20. Estimated RwD crash reductions for six-inch wide centerline pavement markings at 

rural locations. ....................................................................................................................... 31

Table 21. Six-inch wide edgeline pavement marking CMF values.............................................. 32

Table 22. Expected RwD crash reductions for six-inch wide edgelines....................................... 33

Table 23. Centerline raised pavement marking CMF values. ....................................................... 34

Table 24. Estimated RwD crash reductions for centerline raised pavement markings. ............... 36

Table 25. Edgeline raised pavement marking CMF values. ......................................................... 37

Table 26. Estimated RwD crash reductions for edgeline raised pavement markings................... 38

Table 27. CMF values for lighting improvements. ....................................................................... 40

Table 28. Estimated RwD nighttime crash lighting improvements for sites with no previous 

lighting. .................................................................................................................................. 41

Table 29. CMF values for high friction surface treatments. ......................................................... 43

Table 30. Predicted RwD crash reductions for high friction surface treatment applications. ...... 44

Table 31. CMF values for static curve warning signs. ................................................................. 46

Table 32. Predicted RwD crash reductions based on the addition of static curve warning signs. 47

Table 33. CMF values for enhanced curve warning signs. ........................................................... 48
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

vi

Table 34. Estimated RwD crash reductions for implementation of enhanced curve warning signs.

............................................................................................................................................... 49

Table 35. CMF values for utility pole relocation. ......................................................................... 51

Table 36. Estimated number of RwD crashes based on utility pole relocation. ........................... 52

Table 37. CMF values to remove or shield trees or fixed objects. ............................................... 54

Table 38. Estimated RwD crash reduction based on removal or shielding of trees or fixed 

objects. ................................................................................................................................... 55

Table 39. CMF values for culvert end treatment and ditch improvement. ................................... 57

Table 40. Estimated RwD crash reductions for culvert end treatment and ditch improvement. .. 58

Table 41. Shoulder widening with drainage grading improvements CMF values. ...................... 59

Table 42. Estimated RwD crash reductions for shoulder widening with drainage grading 

improvements. ....................................................................................................................... 60

Table 43. Shoulder widening without drainage grading improvements CMF values. ................. 62

Table 44. Estimated RwD crash reductions for shoulder widening without drainage grading 

improvements. ....................................................................................................................... 63

Table 45. CMF values for flattening median sideslopes............................................................... 64

Table 46. Estimated RwD crash reductions due to flattening median sideslopes. ....................... 65

Table 47. CMF values for adding barrier...................................................................................... 66

Table 48. Estimated RwD crash reductions due to adding barrier. .............................................. 67

Table 49. CMF values for improving barrier to current standards. .............................................. 68

Table 50. Estimated RwD crash reductions due to improving barrier.......................................... 69

Table 51. CMF values for installing median barrier. .................................................................... 70

Table 52. Estimated RwD crash reduction due to installing median barrier. ............................... 71

Table 53. Example production performance measures table. ....................................................... 72

Table 54. Example effectiveness performance measures table. ................................................... 73
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Photograph. Centerline rumble stripe. .......................................................................... 24

Figure 2. Photograph. Edgeline rumble stripe/strip. ..................................................................... 27

Figure 3. Photograph. Six-inch centerline pavement markings. ................................................... 29

Figure 4. Photograph. Six-inch wider edgeline pavement markings. ........................................... 32

Figure 5. Photograph. Centerline raised pavement markings. ...................................................... 34

Figure 6. Photograph. Adding lighting improvements at key isolated locations. ......................... 39

Figure 7. Equation. Calculation for the length of run-out for each curve. .................................... 42

Figure 8. Photograph. High friction surface treatment. ................................................................ 43

Figure 9. Photograph. Application of curve warning signs. ......................................................... 45

Figure 10. Graphic. Enhanced curve warning systems. ................................................................ 48

Figure 11. Photograph. Candidate relocation for utility pole (urban environment). .................... 50

Figure 12. Graphic. Remove or shield trees or fixed objects. ....................................................... 53

Figure 13. Photograph. Roadside culvert and treatment and associated ditch improvement.6 ..... 56

Figure 14. Photograph. Shoulder pavement candidate. ................................................................ 61

Figure 15. Photograph. Improve barrier to current standards. ...................................................... 68
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

viii

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AADT annual average daily traffic

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

CMF crash modification factor / function 

FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

HFST high friction surface treatment

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RDSIP Roadway Departure Safety Implementation Plan

RwD roadway departure (crash)

SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan

SPF safety performance function 

SVROR Single Vehicle Run-off-road (crash) 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduce this Plan by summarizing some general statistics for the region. The following 

represents example text that could be updated to reflect the information for the agency and 

associated region. 

From <starting year> to <ending year>, roadway departure crashes in ABC Agency accounted 

for approximately <xx> percent of statewide fatal crashes, yet only <xx> percent of total crashes 

occurred due to roadway departures. To address these severe crashes, the ABC Agency is 

developing a Roadway Departure Safety Implementation Plan, referred to as the Plan in this 

document. This document includes a summary of the data analysis and recommendations for 

improvements targeted at reducing these severe roadway departure crashes.

Provide a brief history, if known, related to past Roadway Departure Plans. This does not need to 

be more than a few sentences in length.

The evaluation approach documented in this Plan uses a combination of predictive safety 

assessment techniques and observed crash statistics as a way of comprehensively identifying 

candidate locations that are expected to benefit by the implementation of safety treatments. This 

Plan focuses on low-cost countermeasures suitable for widespread deployment. A wide variety 

of low-cost countermeasures may be considered. For the purposes of this Plan, <insert number 

of selected treatments to assess here> prospective treatments are the focus of this analysis.

Based on this analysis, this plan proposes treatments that collectively should result in a reduction 

of approximately <xx> fatal crashes per year and almost <xx> total RwD crashes per year for a 

<x>-year period based on the type and quantity of treatments outlined in the Plan. The following 

enhancements are critical components needed to achieve this crash reduction goal:

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

roadway departure locations should be complimented with the systematic deployment of 

proven lower cost treatments.

• The treatments evaluated as part of this Plan focused on roadway departure crashes and 

ultimately will also help contribute to the national effort of Towards Zero Deaths. An 

additional way to reduce the number and severity of crashes is to similarly assess 

candidate countermeasures for other crash types.

• The following <xx> roadway departure countermeasures should be deployed based on a 

prioritization approach that optimizes construction with ongoing work efforts and 

emphasizes deployment at locations where there are greater opportunities to reduce 

crashes <determine the treatments of preference and display in bullet list below>: 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

2

o Centerline rumble stripes / strips.

o Edgeline rumble stripes / strips.

o 6” wide centerline pavement markings.

o 6” wide edgeline pavement markings.

o Centerline raised pavement markings.

o Edgeline raised pavement markings.

o Roadway lighting improvements.

o High Friction Surface Treatments.

o Static curve warning signs (standard).

o Enhanced curve warning system.

o Utility pole relocation.

o Remove or shield tree or fixed objects.

o Culvert End Treatment and Ditch improvement.

o Shoulder widening with drainage grading improvements

o Shoulder widening without drainage grading improvements

o Flattening median sideslopes.

o Add barrier.

o Upgrade or enhance barrier. 

o Install median barrier. 

o Education and enforcement campaigns. 

This plan provides recommendations on how these safety enhancement strategies can be 

effectively implemented. An annual reduction of approximately <xx> fatal crashes per year

requires an annual investment of approximately $<xx> million for each of the next <x> years. 

Following deployment and continuous maintenance of these treatments, the number of lives 

saved due to roadway departure crashes can be expected to continue to decrease on ABC 

Agency highways beyond the next <x> years. 

For additional information about the FHWA Roadway Departure Focus State Initiative, contact 

Joseph Cheung, FHWA Office of Safety, at joseph.cheung@dot.gov. For additional information 

about the ABC Agency please contact <insert agency contact person, title, and email 

address>. 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

3

ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY GOAL

BACKGROUND 

<Jurisdiction represented by agency> roadway departure (RwD) fatal crashes account, on 

average, for approximately <xx> percent of all roadway fatal crashes within the <State, Region, 

County, Parish, Other>. Total and fatal <name of jurisdiction> crashes related to roadway 

departure generally account for around <xx> percent of the total roadway crashes (see table 1). 

Some of the causes for these crashes include a failure to maintain control, speed, impairment, 

and failure to obey traffic control devices. 

Table 1. Total, RwD, and fatal crashes by year (2012 – 2016). 

Year

All Crashes Fatal Crashes

Total 

Crashes

RwD

Crashes

Percent of 

Annual 

Total 

Crashes

(%) 

Total Fatal 

Crashes

Total Fatal 

RwD 

Crashes

Percent of 

Annual 

Total Fatal 

Crashes

(%) 

2012 153,084 20,935 14% 654 289 44%

2013 153,963 21,188 14% 651 303 47%

2014 156,813 21,175 14% 665 330 50%

2015 168,316 22,298 13% 698 229 33%

2016 173,539 21,766 13% 700 296 42%

Total 805,715 107,362 13% 3,368 1,447 43%

The values shown in this table are intended to demonstrate example content for a five-year period. For 

the purposes of this table, the years 2012 through 2016 have been used for demonstration purposes.

If appropriate, add a brief discussion about the agencies’ strategic goals and related focus areas. 

If the agency has a Towards Zero, Destination Zero Deaths, or similar long-term target this 

should also be noted. 

DEFINITION OF RWD CRASHES

A recently published Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) report titled Federal Highway 

Administration Focus Area Data Definitions provides an overview of the FHWA definition of 

RwD crashes.

(1) In the early 2000s, the FHWA calculation for these crash types separately 

identified single-vehicle and multiple-vehicle crashes in an effort to avoid double counting 

crashes within the two broad categories. At that time, many transportation agencies defined a 

single-vehicle RwD crashes as a single vehicle run-off-road (SVROR) crash. These agencies 

expanded this definition for multiple-vehicle crashes as the following collision types:

• Front-to-front (i.e. head-on). 

• Front-to-side, opposite direction (i.e. opposite direction angle crash). 

• Sideswipe, opposite direction (i.e. opposite direction sideswipe crash). 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

4

In 2009, FHWA refined the criteria used to define RwD crashes by incorporating vehicle event 

disaggregation. Vehicle event disaggregation provided a sequence of up to six events specific to 

each vehicle involved in the crash and included elements such as “ran-off-road -- right” and 

“cross median/centerline.” FHWA also excluded intersection crashes at that time, primarily 

because most RwD countermeasures are not applicable at intersections. 

The new FHWA definition of a RwD crash is “a crash in which a vehicle crosses an edge line, a 

centerline, or leaves the traveled way.” (2) The single change to the coding is to remove the 

intersection filter. FARS defines the vast majority of RwD events as those classified with a first 

harmful event for any involved vehicle as: 

• Ran-off-road -- right (FARs code 63), 

• Ran-off-road -- left (FARs code 64),

• Cross median (FARS code 65), or 

• Cross centerline (FARS code 68). 

The definition further includes a number of fixed object codes based on the idea that a vehicle 

must depart a roadway in order to collide with an object. These first harmful event codes are 

represented as the FARS fixed object codes 17, 19–43, 46, 52, 53, 57, and 59).(3) Finally, the 

RwD identification definition includes three additional event codes deemed to most likely be 

indicative of a RwD crash:

• Vehicle went airborne (FARS code 67), 

• Re-entering roadway (FARS code 69), and 

• End Departure (FARS code 71). 

For this effort, the ABC Agency definition for RwD crashes is identified as a crash-level element 

coded as:

Identify the RwD crash codes here as defined for the jurisdiction.

The basis for the ABC Agency crash information included in this document is data for the <x>-

year period extending from <20xx to 20xx>. The data summarized in this report represents 

crashes identified as RwD events as included in the ABC Agency crash database. 

APPROACH

The goal of this Plan is to help reduce RwD fatal and serious injury crashes in ABC Agency. 

The Plan explores a variety of analysis techniques for optimizing and selecting study sites and 

their associated candidate safety enhancements. An effective and efficient Implementation Plan 

requires a strategic approach. In addition to support and facilitation of enforcement and training 

activities, deployment of safety treatments can enhance roadway safety at locations where RwD 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

5

crashes may be expected. This Plan blends traditional cluster-crash analysis techniques with 

state-of-practice predictive procedures to help identify locations where the deployment of safety 

treatments will provide the best opportunity to reduce these severe crashes in ABC Agency. 

These data driven analysis approaches use historic (observed) crash data as a key element when 

evaluating safety performance. The companion Data package document included as standalone 

Appendix A provides detailed information about the steps used to develop the recommended 

treatments included in the Plan. The procedures use the observed crash data and, where sufficient 

data is available, predicted crashes to estimate the opportunity to reduce crashes at target 

locations. The Plan documents the potential impact of these improvements in terms of reducing 

total RwD crashes, injury crashes (“KABC” collisions), and fatal (“K”). 

Note: The crash severity should be adjusted based on the preferred format for the agency. As an 

example, due to small sample sizes, many agencies substitute “K” crashes with “KA” crashes.

For the purposes of this generic template, “KABC” and “K” have been used. 

In addition to the deployment of targeted safety treatments, ABC Agency will benefit from 

developing additional system-wide applications as well as prioritizing effective treatments as a 

routine part of facility maintenance and construction. 

DISTRIBUTION OF ROADWAY DEPARTURE CRASHES

A review of RwD crash and injury severity data for ABC Agency can help to identify insights 

into the distribution and characteristics of these observed crashes. As a starting point, table 2

summarizes the individual roadway jurisdictions for ABC Agency roads. 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

6

Table 2. Jurisdiction for ABC Agency roads. 

Roadway Category Length (miles)

State System

Roadways

Rural Interstate 528.4

Rural Multilane Undivided 118.2

Rural Multilane Divided 642.0

Rural Two-lane 11,718.8

Urban Interstate 490.3

Urban Multilane Undivided 477.2

Urban Multilane Divided 579.5

Urban Two-lane 2,136.3

Subtotal of State System Roads: 16,690.8

Local roadways 42,182.0

Total: 58,872.8

The values shown in this table are intended to demonstrate example State and local roadway categories 

for a State agency. If a RwD Plan is developed for a smaller region (i.e. DOT District, County, Parish, 

MPO, etc.), the roadway categories would need to be adjusted accordingly. The first paragraph 

following this table would similarly need to be updated.

ABC Agency road ownership includes State system facilities as well as local jurisdiction 

roadways. The ABC Agency road types include those categorized as rural, urban, and local 

facilities. 

Table 3 summarizes the number of observed RwD crashes, by route and region type. During this

five-year period, <xx> of the total <xx> RwD crashes occurred at locations identified as 

unknown. Of these crashes, <xx> involved at least one fatal injury. 

Table 4 summarizes the collision types for RwD and total crashes by collision type. Head-on 

crashes made up 19 percent of the total RwD fatal crashes while 66 percent of the fatal crashes 

were single vehicle collisions. Table 5 further identifies the crash data based on the first harmful 

event. Common first harmful events included running off road to right or left, crossing median, 

hitting a tree, utility pole, or other fixed object, or hitting a Culvert End Treatment and Ditch. 

The first harmful event can be particularly useful when selecting candidate countermeasures, as 

it will help identify treatments that, if deployed, explicitly target these key conditions. 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

7

Table 3. RwD Crashes by route and region type (<20xx-20xx>). 

 RwD Crashes RwD Fatal Crashes

Route Region 

Type

Total RwD 

Crashes

Percent of 

Annual Total

RwD Crashes

(%) 

Total RwD 

Fatal Crashes

Percent of 

Annual Total 

RwD Fatal 

Crashes (%)

Interstate/Freeway Rural 6,385 6 103 7 

 Urban 11,420 10 128 9 

 Subtotal 17,805 16 231 16

Principal Arterial Rural 2,636 3 54 4 

 Urban 9,065 8 97 6 

 Subtotal 11,701 11 151 10

Minor Arterial Rural 4,924 4 99 7 

 Urban 9,512 9 116 8 

 Subtotal 14,436 13 215 15

Collector Rural 17,378 16 382 26

 Urban 6,008 6 94 7 

 Subtotal 23,386 22 476 33

Others Rural 2,450 2 43 3 

 Urban 458 < 1 5 < 1

 Unknown 940 1 4 < 1

 Subtotal 3,848 4 52 4 

Unknown Unknown 36,186 34 322 22

Total 107,362 100 1,447 100

The values shown in this table are intended to demonstrate the contrast between the percentage of 

annual total RwD crashes compared to the percentage for total RwD fatal crashes. A five-year period 

has been used for the purposes of this table and is based on the years 2012 through 2016.

Table 4. RwD and total crashes by collision type ( <20xx-20xx> ).

Collision Type

All Crashes Fatal Crashes

Total 

Crashes

Total 

RwD 

Crashes

Percent of 

Total 

RwD 

Crashes

(%) 

Total 

Fatal 

Crashes

Total Fatal 

RwD 

Crashes

Percent of 

Total Fatal 

RwD 

Crashes 

(%) 

Single Vehicle Crash 124,231 85,660 80 1,940 1,271 88

Sideswipe Same Direction 96,060 2,750 3 75 13 1 

Rear End 285,528 2,428 2 322 21 1 

Head On 12,358 1,198 1 385 73 5 

Right Angle 109,829 1306 1 398 32 2 

Other 177,709 14020 13 248 37 3 

Total 805,715 107,362 100 3,368 1,447 100

xx
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

8

Table 5. RwD crashes by first harmful event (<20xx-20xx>). 

Route Region Type

RwD Crashes Fatal RwD Crashes

Number

Percent of 

Annual Total 

(%) 

Number

Percent of 

Annual Total 

(%) 

Ran off road Right* 

Rural 16,079 15 356 25

Urban / Urbanized 13,039 12 216 15

Unknown 10,998 10 120 8 

Subtotal 40,116 37 692 48

Ran off road Left* 

Rural 5,625 5 113 8 

Urban / Urbanized 5,795 6 91 6 

Unknown 5,252 5 51 4 

Subtotal 16,672 16 255 18

Crossed 

Median/Centerline

Rural 5,113 5 152 11

Urban / Urbanized 2,741 3 44 3 

Unknown 2,113 2 35 2 

Subtotal 9,967 9 231 16

Tree and other fixed 

object* 

Rural 2,905 3 6 < 1

Urban / Urbanized 512 < 1 8 < 1

Unknown 846 < 1 16 1 

Subtotal 4,263 4 30 2 

Utility Pole* 

Rural 87 < 1 1 < 1

Urban / Urbanized 596 < 1 2 < 1

Unknown 1,199 1 3 < 1

Subtotal 1,882 2 6 < 1

Culvert End Treatment 

and Ditch* 

Rural 961 1 4 < 1

Urban / Urbanized 1,246 1 1 < 1

Unknown 2,736 3 18 1 

Subtotal 4,943 5 23 2 

Other

Rural 3,003 3 49 3 

Urban / Urbanized 12,534 11 78 5 

Unknown 13,982 13 83 6 

Subtotal 29,519 27 210 14

Total 107,362 100 1,447 100

xx

Note: Urban / Urbanized = population 5000 and above.

* Potential coding discrepancies are likely as vehicles that ran into poles, ditches, or trees first must have run off the 

road either to the right or left
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

9

The presence of street lighting can help reduce the number of nighttime crashes. Table 6 depicts 

the distribution of RwD crashes based on lighting conditions. As shown, approximately <xx>

percent of the RwD crashes occurred during daylight conditions. 

Table 6. RwD crashes by lighting condition ( <20xx-20xx> ).

Lighting 

Condition

All Crashes Fatal Crashes

Total 

Crashes

Total RwD 

Crashes

Percent of 

Total RwD 

Crashes (%)

Total Fatal 

Crashes

Fatal RwD

Fatal 

Crashes

Percent of 

Total RwD 

Fatal 

Crashes (%)

Daylight 579,698 53,197 50 1364 555 38

Dark (No Lighting) 66,087 29,831 28 1149 596 41

Dark (Lighting) 133,347 19,667 18 687 232 16

Dawn 7,341 1,675 2 64 27 2 

Dusk 11,734 1,533 1 77 18 1 

Unknown 7,508 1459 1 27 19 1 

Total 805,715 107,362 100 3,368 1,447 100

xx

As shown in table 7, <xx> percent of the total RwD crashes occurred on ABC Agency roads 

from <20xx to 20xx> when the pavement surface was dry. In fact, on average approximately 

<xx> percent of total RwD crashes and <xx> percent of fatal RwD crashes occurred during wet 

pavement conditions.

Table 7. RwD crashes by pavement surface condition ( <20xx-20xx> ).

Surface 

Condition

All Crashes Fatal Crashes

Total 

Crashes

Total RwD 

Crashes

Percent of 

Total RwD 

Crashes (%)

Total Fatal 

Crashes

Total RwD

Fatal

Crashes

Percent of 

Total RwD 

Fatal 

Crashes (%)

Dry 677,665 79,286 74 2925 1226 85

Wet 121,013 25,897 24 404 195 13

Ice 507 214 0 5 1 0 

Other 6,530 1,965 2 34 25 2 

Total 805,715 107,362 100 3368 1447 100

xx
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

10

SUMMARY OF RWD CRASH STATISTICS

Based on a review of the RwD crashes that occurred in ABC Agency during a <x>-year period, 

the following items directly influenced the recommended key components of this RwD

Implementation Plan:

• A large number of crashes occurred on roads that were not part of the State-maintained 

system. The precise location of these crashes was not always available and is shown as 

“Unknown” in the summary tables (see table 3 as an example). 

• Single vehicle and head-on crash types made up the majority of fatal RwD crashes (<xx>

crashes) in ABC Agency at approximately <xx> percent of the total fatal RwD crashes

(see table 4). 

• The first harmful events common to RwD crashes in ABC Agency include running-offroad (to right or left), crossing median/centerline, colliding with a tree, utility pole, or 

other fixed object, or hitting a culvert or ditch (see table 5). 

• Approximately 50 percent of the observed RwD crashes occurred during daytime 

conditions (see table 6). 

• On average, about 24 percent of total RwD crashes and 13 percent of fatal RwD crashes 

occurred during wet pavement conditions (see table 7). 

SUMMARY OF RWD COUNTERMEASURE DEPLOYMENTS

The <AGENCY NAME> can deploy a wide variety of potential techniques targeted at 

mitigating the number of RwD crashes or, when the crash cannot be avoided, limiting the level 

of crash severity. Additional definitions and details for each recommended countermeasure are 

included in table 8. Table 9 through table 13 collectively summarize these recommended 

countermeasures and their associated costs (where known). 

The information contained in the following tables represents a summary strategy matrix that 

identifies the individual candidate countermeasures, reviews the associated costs expected for 

each treatment, and summarizes the annual estimated reduction in crashes for total RwD, K, and 

KABC collisions. The final column in these summary tables identifies the individual cost (in 

millions of dollars) required to save one life each year. The intent of this strategy matrix is to 

identify prospective treatments to program as part of a five-year initiative.
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

11

Table 8. Countermeasure description information and associated crash reductions.

Countermeasure Type

Beginning 

Page Number 

for 

Additional 

Information

Related 

CMF 

Values

Estimated 

Crash 

Reductions

Center rumble stripes/ strips 24 Table 16 Table 17

Edgeline rumble stripes/strips 27 Table 18 Table 19

6" wide centerline pavement markings 29 Table 20 Table 21

6" wide edgeline pavement markings 31 Table 22 Table 23

Centerline raised pavement markers 34 Table 24 Table 25

Edgeline raised pavement markers 37 Table 26 Table 27

Lighting improvements 39 Table 28 Table 29

High friction surface treatment 42 Table 30 Table 31

Static curve warning sign (standard) 45 Table 32 Table 33

Enhanced curve warning system 48 Table 34 Table 35

Utility pole relocation 50 Table 36 Table 37

Remove or shield tree or fixed objects 53 Table 38 Table 39

Culvert end treatment and ditch improvement 56 Table 40 Table 41

Shoulder widening with drainage grading improvements 58 Table 42 Table 43

Shoulder widening without drainage grading 

improvements 61 Table 44 Table 45

Flattening median sideslopes 64 Table 46 Table 47

Add barrier 65 Table 48 Table 49

Improve barrier 67 Table 50 Table 51

Install median barrier 69 Table 52 Table 53

As noted in the strategy matrix, saving 19 to 20 additional lives per year will require an 

approximate investment of $130 million over the next five-year period. This is equivalent to 

approximately $26 million per year for each of the five implementation years.
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

12

System Rural Roadways

Countermeasure Unit Cost

Estimated 

Number of

Improvements

(Length or 

Unit)

Associated 

Cost ($ 

Million)

Annual 

Targeted 

RwD 

Crash 

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

Fatality 

Reduction

($ 

Million) 

Required 

to save 

one life

annually

Center rumble stripes/ 

strips $475/mile 544.4 $0.26 71.56 1.68 $0.15

Edgeline rumble 

stripes/strips

6" wide centerline 

pavement markings

6" wide edgeline

pavement markings

Centerline raised 

pavement markers

Edgeline raised 

pavement markers

Lighting improvements

High friction surface 

treatment

Static curve warning 

sign (standard)

Enhanced curve 

warning system

Utility pole relocation

Remove or shield tree 

or fixed objects $30,000/ location 359 $10.77 15.85 0.33 $32.59

Culvert end treatment 

and ditch improvement

Shoulder widening with 

drainage grading 

improvements

Shoulder widening 

without drainage 

grading improvements

Flattening median 

sideslopes

Add barrier

Improve barrier

Install median barrier

Education & 

Enforcement 

Campaigns

Subtotal for Rural Roads (5-year cost) -- -- --

Subtotal for Rural Roads (yearly cost)

* The origin of CMFs varies, but they are generally based on values at the CMF Clearinghouse or in related 

publications as noted. The unit costs are based on values provided by and/or reviewed with the <AGENCY 

NAME> staff. These costs do not include right-of-way acquisitions or continuous routine maintenance.

Table 9. RwD countermeasure strategy matrix for system rural roadways – five-year 

summary*. 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

13

Table 10. RwD countermeasure strategy matrix for system urban roadways – five-year summary*. 

System Urban Roadways

Countermeasure Unit Cost

Estimated 

Number of

Improvements

(Length or 

Unit)

Associated 

Cost ($ 

Million)

Annual 

Targeted 

RwD 

Crash 

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

Fatality 

Reduction

($ 

Million) 

Required 

to save 

one life

annually

Center rumble stripes/ 

strips $475/mile 0.0 -- -- -- --

Edgeline rumble 

stripes/strips

6" wide centerline 

pavement markings

6" wide edgeline 

pavement markings

Centerline raised 

pavement markers

Edgeline raised 

pavement markers

Lighting improvements

High friction surface 

treatment

Static curve warning 

sign (standard)

Enhanced curve 

warning system

Utility pole relocation

Remove or shield tree 

or fixed objects $30,000/ location 217 $6.51 13.02 0.20 $32.77

Culvert end treatment 

and ditch improvement

Shoulder widening with 

drainage grading 

improvements

Shoulder widening 

without drainage 

grading improvements

Flattening median 

sideslopes

Add barrier

Improve barrier

Install median barrier

Subtotal for Urban Roads (5-year cost) -- --

Subtotal for Urban Roads (yearly cost)

* The origin of CMFs varies, but they are generally based on values at the CMF Clearinghouse or in related 

publications as noted. The unit costs are based on values provided by and/or reviewed with the <AGENCY 

NAME> staff. These costs do not include right-of-way acquisitions or continuous routine maintenance.
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

14

Local Rural Roadways

Countermeasure Unit Cost

Estimated 

Number of

Improvements

(Length or 

Unit)

Associated 

Cost ($ 

Million)

Annual 

Targeted 

RwD 

Crash 

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

Fatality 

Reduction

($ 

Million) 

Required 

to save 

one life

annually

Center rumble stripes / 

strips $475/mile 3.91 $0.002 0.55 0.01 $0.34

Edgeline rumble 

stripes/strips

6" wide centerline 

pavement markings

6" wide edgeline 

pavement markings

Centerline raised 

pavement markers

Edgeline raised 

pavement markers

Lighting improvements

High friction surface 

treatment

Static curve warning 

sign (standard)

Enhanced curve 

warning system

Utility pole relocation

Remove or shield tree 

or fixed objects

$30,000/ 

location 13 $0.39 0.48 0.01 $63.84

Culvert end treatment 

and ditch improvement

Shoulder widening with 

drainage grading 

improvements

Shoulder widening 

without drainage 

grading improvements

Flattening median 

sideslopes

Add barrier

Improve barrier

Install median barrier

Subtotal for Rural Roads (5-year cost) -- -- --

Subtotal for Rural Roads (yearly cost)

* The origin of CMFs varies, but they are generally based on values at the CMF Clearinghouse or in related 

publications as noted. The unit costs are based on values provided by and/or reviewed with the <AGENCY 

NAME> staff.

Table 11. RwD countermeasure strategy matrix for local rural roadways – five-year summary*. 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

15

Table 12. RwD strategy matrix for local urban roadways – five-year summary*. 

Local Urban Roadways

Countermeasure Unit Cost

Estimated 

Number of

Improvements

(Length or 

Unit)

Associated 

Cost ($ 

Million)

Annual 

Targeted 

RwD 

Crash 

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

Fatality 

Reduction

($ 

Million) 

Required 

to save 

one life

annually

Center rumble stripes / 

strips $475/mile 0 -- -- -- --

Edgeline rumble 

stripes/strips

6" wide centerline 

pavement markings

6" wide edgeline 

pavement markings

Centerline raised 

pavement markers

Edgeline raised 

pavement markers

Lighting improvements

High friction surface 

treatment

Static curve warning 

sign (standard)

Enhanced curve warning 

system 

Utility pole relocation

Remove or shield tree or 

fixed objects

$30,000/ 

location 0 -- -- -- --

Culvert end treatment 

and ditch improvement

Shoulder widening with 

drainage grading 

improvements

Shoulder widening 

without drainage grading 

improvements

Flattening median 

sideslopes

Add barrier

Improve barrier

Install median barrier

Subtotal for Urban Roads (5-year cost) -- -- --

Subtotal for Urban Roads (yearly cost)

* The origin of CMFs varies, but they are generally based on values at the CMF Clearinghouse or in related 

publications as noted. The unit costs are based on values provided by and/or reviewed with the <AGENCY 

NAME> staff.
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

16

Table 13. Summary of strategy matrix estimated costs and performance measures.

Description Rural Roads Urban Roads Local Roads Grand Total

Projected Five Year Metrics

Cost ($ Million)

Projected Annual Metrics

Cost ($ Million)

Targeted RwD Crash 

Reduction

Estimated Reduction in K 

Crashes

Estimated Reduction in 

KABC Crashes

Funds Required to Save 

One Life ($ Million)

The companion Data Analysis package (see Appendix A) document and companion spreadsheet 

is presented in the Strategy Matrix. The Data Analysis package also includes information related 

to the development of the ABC Agency RwD safety performance functions. Appendix A 

includes the above referenced Excel file that summarizes the strategy matrix calculations. In 

addition, appendix B includes an Excel file that ranks the individual State-system and local 

highway sections suitable for countermeasure deployment. 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

17

FIRST KEY ACTIONS

Successful implementation of RwD safety enhancements can involve activities that include 

development of enhanced guidelines for countermeasure selection, field evaluation of candidate 

locations, and prioritization of projects and associated funding. In addition, an effective safety 

enhancement program should incorporate identification of performance measures that will 

ultimately strengthen the effective selection of safety enhancement treatments. The following 

summary includes a list of key action items.

• The RwD Safety Implementation Plan should be presented to the ABC Agency

leadership including representatives from the District Offices, Maintenance Division, 

Road Design Division, Traffic Engineering Division, Materials Control Soils and Testing 

Division, Planning Division, and Programming Division. If local roads are evaluated, the 

Plan should also be presented to LTAP leadership. The purpose of this activity is to share 

and review the Plan, obtain input, and identify action items towards a successful 

implementation of the Plan.

• An important aspect of this Plan will be the identification of sustained program funding 

to help pay for the cost of the safety enhancements while also enabling continued 

activities such as training, performance assessment, etc. Consequently, a helpful step is to 

assess funding sources, including HSIP, to determine ways to sustain the Plan in future 

years.

• Where feasible, the agency should identify and program safety treatments typically 

deployed as part of maintenance, design, and operations activities. For this Plan, systemwide treatments that occur as a matter of policy are assumed to have associated 

programmed annual costs and so these costs are not directly considered as part of this 

Plan.

• Due to the large number of RwD crashes occurring on rural roads, a successful 

implementation of RwD safety treatments should consider some systemic applications of 

safety treatments for these facilities. Though the Plan identified candidate locations for 

centerline and edgeline rumble strips, as an example, consideration should be given to 

widescale deployment of these and similar countermeasures that will provide 

uninterrupted treatments along entire corridors.

• To assess Plan effectiveness, the ABC Agency should explore ways to track performance 

before and after treatment deployment. This approach will enable identification of 

additional future cost effective treatments with known safety performance. 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

18

IDENTIFYING THE PROMISING HIGHWAY LOCATIONS TO ADDRESS WITH ROADWAY 

DEPARTURE COUNTERMEASURES 

Where feasible, methods that collectively consider road types and their unique characteristics 

provide more reliable results than techniques that limit the analysis only to observed crashes at 

select locations. Consequently, this Plan recommends the following analysis methods to help the 

ABC Agency enhance their ongoing safety initiatives:

• Predictive safety assessment method for facilities where a RwD safety performance 

function and a crash modification factor for that road type are available. For the ABC 

Agency Plan, the RwD crash data is sufficient for the development of a RwD safety 

performance function for the following roadway facilities:

o Rural two-lane roadway, 

o Rural multilane (divided) roadway, 

o Rural multilane (undivided) roadway,

o Rural freeway,

o Urban two-lane roadway,

o Urban multilane (divided) roadway, 

o Urban multilane (undivided) roadway, 

o Urban freeway,

o Local rural roadway, and 

o Local urban roadway.

The resulting predictive approach enables an analysis that weights the observed crashes 

with statistically developed predicted crashes for an overall expected crash number. 

This weighted value, referred to as the expected number of crashes (before deployment 

of a treatment), can then be used, in conjunction with industry developed crash 

modification factors specifically focused on RwD crashes, to calculate the estimated 

reduction in the total number of RwD crashes (after treatment). The term estimated is 

used to reference mathematical procedures that are not captured by the terms 

expected, predicted, or observed crashes.

• For locations where RwD safety performance functions are not feasible or where a 

suitable CMF for RwD crashes is not available, the Plan incorporates safety assessment

techniques that rely on the frequency of observed crashes at known high-crash locations

as well as CMFs based on engineering judgment. 

• Many opportunities exist for the system-wide deployment of safety treatments. For 

example, the systemic construction of rumble strips may occur as part of a resurfacing or 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

19

shoulder improvement project. The estimated RwD safety benefits included in this Plan 

do not directly address systemic treatments commonly deployed as a matter of policy. 

REVIEW OF LOW-COST COUNTERMEASURES FOR THE ABC AGENCY HIGHWAYS

The goal of this Plan is to identify optimal locations and countermeasures that collectively can 

help to reduce the number and severity of RwD crashes in the ABC Agency. This initiative 

involves the identification of several potential low-cost, effective countermeasures targeted for 

the reduction of RwD crashes along ABC Agency roadway locations. The list of low-cost 

countermeasures is divided into categories that (1) first focus on keeping the vehicles on the 

roadway, (2) next target the provision of a safe roadside area, and (3) help to reduce crash 

severity in the event the crash occurs. The treatments evaluated in this Plan are as follows:

• Keep Vehicles on Roadway:

o Centerline rumble stripes / strips.

o Edgeline rumble stripes / strips.

o Six-inch wide centerline pavement markings.

o Six-inch wide edgeline pavement markings.

o Centerline raised pavement markings.

o Edgeline raised pavement markings.

o Lighting improvements.

o High friction surface treatments.

o Static curve warning signs (standard).

o Enhanced curve warning system.

• Provide for a Safe Recovery Area: 

o Utility pole relocation.

o Remove or shield tree or fixed objects.

o Culvert end treatment and ditch improvement.

o Shoulder widening with drainage grading improvements.

o Shoulder widening without drainage grading improvements.

o Flattening median sideslopes.

• Reduce Crash Severity:

o Add barrier.

o Improve barrier.
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

20

o Install median barrier. 

o ABC Agency bridge rail retrofit for MASH standards.

• Education and Enforcement Campaigns. 

Though this Plan focuses on relatively low-cost treatments, it is likely that higher cost 

countermeasures may be options at some of the identified locations. Due to ongoing safety 

initiatives in ABC Agency, the ABC Agency may have constructed safety treatments at some of 

the identified locations. Consequently, this Plan further notes that the ABC Agency personnel 

should conduct field visits as part of the initial scoping activities to determine if the condition 

persists that initially triggered attention to each site due to RwD crash concerns.

The analysis summarized in this Plan assesses State system roadways divided into segments with 

a maximum length of two-mile. For local roads, the maximum segment lengths used for this 

analysis are one-mile. In many cases, the roadway section exceeds these upper bound length 

thresholds. For these locations, the analysis included in this Plan further divided these study 

corridor sections. Similarly, many roadway segments are considerably shorter than the targeted 

thresholds. Study segments, for the purposes of this analysis, represent corridor lengths that are 

greater than or equal to 0.1 miles in length and up to and including two-mile roadway sections. 

Though the Plan may identify a segment as a high crash corridor while excluding an adjacent 

study location, it is recommended that ABC Agency personnel assess upstream and 

downstream locations during the site visit to determine if the limits of the countermeasure 

application should be extended based on similar road conditions at these adjacent locations.

OVERVIEW OF INDIVIDUAL COUNTERMEASURE ANALYSIS

Table 15 provides an overview of the individual countermeasures and associated assessment 

techniques used for the safety analysis included in this Plan. The beginning content for the 

section titled “Components of Plan for Selecting Treatment Types and Thresholds” identifies the 

road types represented in this analysis. 

Table 15 also shows some facility types that are not candidates for a specific treatment. For 

example, the placement of rumble strips in urban areas is generally discouraged due to the 

additional noise generated by these treatments. The toolbox of potential treatments that follows 

further identifies these treatment constraints where applicable. 

As previously noted, for roadways where the safety performance functions are available, the Plan 

uses safety performance functions for total RwD crashes and then weights them with the 

observed crashes to estimate the expected number of RwD crashes prior to the application of a 

treatment. This method is more reliable than the traditional approach that only uses observed 

crashes, as the safety performance function considers all roads of similar types in the evaluation. 

This number of expected crashes represents the “before” condition. These “before” values can 

then be adjusted with a crash modification factor to estimate the “after” treatment condition 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

21

number of crashes. A description of this analysis approach is included in more detail in the 

companion Data Package document for this Plan. Table 15 depicts the more reliable predictive 

method analyses with a “P” indicator. 

Table 15 further identifies assessments based solely on observed crashes by an “O” indicator.

Locations where these observed crashes are used, instead of predicted crashes, occurs when a 

safety treatment features are not available in databases such as a roadway inventory database or a 

representative safety performance function could not be developed. For example, if a 

comprehensive utility pole database is not available then it is not feasible to screen for utility 

pole location characteristics. The best available information, therefore, is historic corridor 

crashes where vehicles impact roadside utility poles. 

In some cases, a crash modification factor may not be applicable for the total RwD crash 

condition. For these treatments, the observed crash assessment method may also be used. As an 

example, the crash modification factor for improving lighting relies on nighttime-only conditions 

rather than the total RwD value. The companion Data Package (Appendix A and Appendix B) 

provides additional detail about the safety performance functions and their use for the underlying 

safety assessment.
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

22

Table 14. List of assessment techniques used.

No.

Countermeasure 

Strategy

State System Facilities Local Roads

Rural Urban Rural 

Roadway

Urban 

Roadway Two-Lane Multilane Interstate Two-Lane Multilane Interstate

1 Center Rumble 

Stripes/Strips P P [undivided only] NA NA NA NA P [undivided only] NA

2 Edgeline Rumble 

Stripes/Strips P P P NA NA P P NA

3 

6” Wide 

Centerline 

Pavement 

Markings

P P [undivided 

only] NA P P [undivided only] NA P P 

4 

6” Wide Edgeline 

Pavement 

Markings

P P P P P P P P 

5 

Centerline Raised 

Pavement 

Markings

P P [undivided 

only] NA P P [undivided only] NA P P 

6 

Edgeline Raised 

Pavement 

Markings

P P P P P P P P 

7 Lighting 

Improvements

O [dark – not 

lighted]

O [dark – not 

lighted]

O [dark – not 

lighted]

O [dark – not 

lighted]

O [dark – not 

lighted]

O [dark – not 

lighted]

O [dark – not 

lighted]

O [dark – not 

lighted]

8 

High Friction 

Surface 

Treatment

P P P P P P P P 

9 

Static Curve 

Warning Sign 

(Standard)

P P P P P P P P 

10 Enhanced Curve 

Warning System P P P P P P P P 

11 Utility Pole O [pole 

crashes only]

O [pole 

crashes only]

O [pole 

crashes only]

O [pole 

crashes only]

O [pole 

crashes only]

O [pole 

crashes only]

O [pole 

crashes only]

O [pole 

crashes only]

12 

Remove or shield 

tree or fixed 

objects

O [fixed 

object 

crashes only]

O [fixed 

object 

crashes only]

O [fixed 

object 

crashes only]

O [fixed 

object 

crashes only]

O [fixed 

object 

crashes only]

O [fixed 

object 

crashes only]

O [fixed object 

crashes only]

O [fixed 

object crashes 

only]
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

23

Table 14. List of assessment techniques (continued). 

No.

Countermeasure 

Strategy

State System Facilities Local Roads

Rural Urban Rural 

Roadway

Urban 

Two-Lane Multilane Interstate Two-Lane Multilane Interstate Roadway

13 

Culvert End 

Treatment & Ditch

Improvement

O [culvert 

and ditch 

crashes only]

O [culvert 

and ditch 

crashes only]

O [culvert 

and ditch 

crashes only]

O [culvert 

and ditch 

crashes 

only]

O [culvert 

and ditch 

crashes only]

O [culvert 

and ditch 

crashes only]

O [culvert 

and ditch 

crashes only]

O [culvert 

and ditch 

crashes only]

14

Shoulder Widening 

with Drainage 

Grading 

Improvements

P P P P P P P P 

15

Shoulder Widening 

without Drainage 

Grading 

Improvements

P P P P P P P P 

16 Flattening Median 

Sideslopes NA

O [overturn 

and no barrier 

in median]

O [overturn 

and no barrier 

in median]

NA

O [overturn 

and no barrier 

in median]

O [overturn 

and no barrier 

in median]

O [overturn 

and no barrier 

in median]

O [overturn 

and no barrier 

in median]

17 Add Barrier

O [no barrier 

and ran off 

road to right]

O [no barrier 

and ran off 

road to right]

O [no barrier 

and ran off 

road to right]

O [no barrier 

and fixed 

object crash]

O [no barrier 

and ran off 

road to right]

O [no barrier 

and ran off 

road to right]

O [no barrier 

and ran off 

road to right]

O [no barrier 

and ran off 

road to right]

18 Improve Barrier

O [crash into 

existing 

barrier]

O [crash into 

existing 

barrier]

O [crash into 

existing 

barrier]

O [crash

into existing 

barrier] 

O [crash into 

existing 

barrier]

O [crash into 

existing 

barrier]

O [crash into 

existing 

barrier]

O [crash into 

existing 

barrier]

19 Install Median 

Barrier NA P [divided only] P NA P [divided only] P P [divided only]

P [undivided 

only]

20

Education and 

Enforcement 

Campaigns

S S S S S S S S 

P = predictive method (weights observed crashes and predicted crashes for an expected number of crashes) 

O = based on observed crashes

S = systemwide

NA = not applicable for road type considered
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

24

TOOLBOX OF IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SAFETY ENHANCEMENT TREATMENTS

A variety of candidate safety treatments are available to help reduce the number of severe injury 

RwD crashes that occur on ABC Agency roadways. For the purposes of this Plan, the data 

supports the countermeasures presented in this chapter. The recommended countermeasures

include proven treatments, and, in many cases, treatments already deployed on ABC Agency

roadways. The ABC Agency roadway inventory may not fully document the locations of 

existing safety treatments. Consequently, the Plan recommends that ABC Agency first assess the 

individual ranked sites to identify and remove locations where similar treatments have either 

already been deployed or are currently slated to be implemented. These ranked sites can be 

developed in a ranking spreadsheet tool, or the ABC Agency can provide an Appendix B 

document that provides ranking recommendations for the highest ranked sites for each potential 

safety countermeasure type.

This Plan explores the suitability of the list of countermeasures previously noted. The 

countermeasures do not include major infrastructure projects such as roadway reconstruction or 

major realignment since this type of enhancement, though effective, would be specific to a 

unique construction project at a location already known to be deficient.

Within this Plan, the estimates for effectiveness and cost for each treatment represent typical 

applications and ABC Agency representatives will need to make additional refinements based on 

unique field conditions. The following summaries review each potential safety treatment as it 

relates to Name of Jurisdiction applications.

CENTERLINE RUMBLE STRIPES / STRIPS

Centerline rumble stripes / strips are effective 

treatments for rural undivided highway locations 

where any noise generated by these treatments 

will not be disruptive to the surrounding 

community. Figure 1 shows an example of a 

rumble stripe where the placement of the 

pavement marking occurs directly on the rumble 

strip (making it a rumble stripe). Table 16

provides a typical value for a crash modification 

factor for head-on and sideswipe crashes based on 

the application of centerline rumble stripes/strips

for rural two-lane highways. The study report 

titled NCHRP Report 641: Guidance for the 

Design and Application of Shoulder and 

Centerline Rumble Strips (2009) included data 

from Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Washington. This report is available at: 

Source: FHWA

Figure 1. Photograph. Centerline 

rumble stripe.
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

25

https://www.nap.edu/ catalog/14323/guidance-for-the-design-and-application-of-shoulder-andcenterline-rumble-strips. 

Table 15. Centerline rumble stripes/strips CMF values. 

Facility 

Type: 

Rural two-lane highway Crash Severity: All

Crash Type: Head-on & Sideswipe CMF: 0.63 (Head-on & Sideswipe) 

0.85 (assumed for RwD 

crashes)

Additional Information:

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/detail.cfm?facid=3355

Notes: 

• The primary target crash identified in previous studies focused on head-on and 

sideswipe crashes. Currently, high quality safety performance functions are not 

available for these crash types and so the Plan utilizes a more generic conservative 

value of 0.85 for all RwD crashes for all facility types. 

• The FHWA CMF Clearinghouse uses a five-star rating scale to represent CMF quality 

where a value of five represents the highest or most reliable rating. The centerline 

rumble stripes/strips head-on and sideswipe CMF value of 0.63 received a five-star 

rating at the CMF Clearinghouse.

In the ABC Agency, the centerline rumble stripes/strips can be applied to rural two-lane as well 

as rural undivided multilane highways. The placement of a milled centerline rumble stripe/strip 

requires full depth pavement so that the construction of the treatment does not undermine the 

integrity of the roadway. This plan assumes that centerline rumble stripes/strips can only be 

considered for ABC Agency rural two-lane facilities if the overall pavement width is from 24 

to 28 ft and the posted speed limit is 50 mph or greater. For rural multi-lane undivided 

facilities, centerline rumble stripes/strips can be considered for roadways with the posted speed 

limit of 50 mph or greater. The placement of a centerline rumble stripe is dependent on the 

presence of centerline pavement marking. 

The Appendix B spreadsheet summarizes potential sites where a centerline rumble strip may be 

considered. The Plan ranks the sites based on how much the observed number of crashes 

exceeded the expected number of crashes for each location based on the predictive method. 

Table 17 summarizes the approximate length of improvements, associated treatment costs, and 

anticipated reduction in crashes estimated to result from the placement of centerline rumble 

stripes/strips. The Plan for deploying recommended centerline rumble stripe/strip applications is 

expected to reduce total crashes by approximately xx crashes per year. This crash reduction also 

equates to approximately one to two fatal crashes each year. Prior to deployment of this 

treatment, local agency personnel should conduct a site inspection to confirm that this treatment 

is suitable and is not already present at the subject location. 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

26

Table 16. Estimated RwD crash reductions for centerline rumble strips at undivided 

facilities.

Facility Type

Estimated 

Length of 

Improvements 

(mi)

Construction 

Cost ($ 

Million)

Ratio of 

Type K

to RwD 

Crashes

Ratio of 

Type 

KABC

to RwD 

Crashes

After Treatment -- RwD Crashes

Annual 

Targeted 

RwD 

Crash 

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

K Crash

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

KABC

Crash 

Reduction

On State System

Rural 2-lane 531.9 $0.253 0.02 0.47 70.58 1.65 33.10

Rural multilane

undivided 12.5 $0.006 0.03 0.39 0.98 0.03 0.38

Rural Subtotal: 544.4 $0.259 -- -- 71.56 1.68 33.48

Locally Owned or Maintained

Local Rural 3.9 $0.002 0.01 0.36 0.55 0.01 0.20

Local Subtotal: 3.9 $0.002 -- -- 0.55 0.01 0.20

Grand Total 548.3 $0.261 -- -- 72.11 1.68 33.68

Notes:

• For installing centerline rumble strips at locations with opposite direction sideswipe and head-on crashes, 

assumes improvement of 50% and 10% of identified system and local locations, respectively. 

• Cost estimates based on $475 per mile.

• CMF value of 0.85 used for installing centerline rumble strips for RwD target crashes.

• Analysis based on locations where the observed number of crashes exceeded the expected number of 

crashes (using predictive analysis). Treatment not considered for divided roadways or urban locations.

Suggested implementation is as follows: 

1. A statewide database for existing centerline rumble stripes/strips is not available. 

Consequently, the Plan assumes that these rumble strips are not present. Prior to initiating 

improvement projects, ABC Agency should inspect the candidate sites and confirm that 

the sites are viable options for this treatment. To overcome this potential limitation, the 

Plan assumes that only 50 percent of the identified State system locations can be 

addressed and only 10 percent of the local sites can be addressed. Following the site 

inspections, ABC Agency may elect to adjust this assumption. As part of the field 

evaluation, ABC Agency staff should confirm the minimum pavement width. This value 

should include the roadway and the shoulder widths.

2. The recommended application for centerline rumble stripes/strips is restricted to 

roadways at rural locations only; however, it is possible that facilities classified as urban 

could be potential candidates for future centerline rumble stripes/strips. The rural 

locations are ranked in the Appendix B spreadsheet and should be used as a starting point 

for programming future improvement sites. ABC Agency staff may want to explore the 

potential for deploying this treatment at select urban locations where the noise generated 

by the rumble stripes/strips will not adversely impact the property owners along the 

corridor. 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

27

EDGELINE RUMBLE STRIPES / STRIPS

Edgeline or shoulder rumble stripes or strips can effectively alert a driver who inadvertently exits 

his or her travel lane. These treatments are appropriate for non-curbed (typically rural) roadways. 

Figure 2 depicts roadways with example edgeline/shoulder rumble stripe/strip applications. 

Table 18 summarizes known safety performance for edgeline rumble stripes/strips.

Edgeline Rumble Stripe Edgeline/Shoulder Rumble Strip 

Source: FHWA

Figure 2. Photograph. Edgeline rumble stripe/strip.

Table 17. Edgeline rumble stripes/strips CMF values. 

Facility Type: Rural two-lane highway Crash Severity: All severity levels 

Crash Type: Run-off-road CMF: 0.84 

Additional Information:

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/detail.cfm?facid=3442#commentanchor

Notes: 

• The primary facility type identified in previous studies focused on rural two-lane 

highways for run-off-road crashes at all severity levels. The CMF value of 0.84 has 

been assumed for these rural two-lane highways as well as for rural multilane highway 

applications. 

• The FHWA CMF Clearinghouse uses a five-star rating scale to represent CMF quality 

where a value of five represents the highest or more reliable rating. The edgeline 

rumble stripe/strip CMF value of 0.84 received a five-star rating at the CMF 

Clearinghouse. 

This treatment is appropriate for rural ABC Agency two-lane highways with a pavement width 

of 25 ft or greater, paved shoulder width greater than 1 ft, and posted speed limit of 50 

mph or greater. For rural multilane highways, this treatment is appropriate for roadways with 

paved shoulder widths greater than 1 ft and a posted speed limit of 50 mph or greater. To 

be effective, the placement of milled edgeline rumble stripes/strips requires full depth pavement 

so that the construction of the treatment does not undermine the integrity of the roadway. 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

28

Table 19 summarizes a proposed improvement plan for edgeline rumble stripe/strip application. 

The Plan for deploying the recommended edgeline rumble stripe/strip applications is expected to 

reduce total crashes by approximately xx crashes per year. This crash reduction also equates to 

approximately two to three fatal crashes each year. Prior to deployment of this treatment ABC 

Agency personnel should conduct a site inspection to confirm that this treatment is suitable and 

is not already present at the subject location.

Table 18. Estimated RwD crash reductions for edgeline rumble stripes/strips at rural 

locations. 

Facility Type

Estimated 

Length of 

Improvements 

(mi)

Construction 

Cost ($ 

Million)

Ratio of 

Type K

to RwD 

Crashes

Ratio of 

Type 

KABC

to RwD 

Crashes

After Treatment – RwD Crashes

Annual 

Targeted 

RwD 

Crash 

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

K Crash

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

KABC 

Crash 

Reduction

On State System

Rural 2-lane

Rural multilane

undivided

Rural multilane 

divided

Rural Interstate

Rural Subtotal: - - 

Urban Interstate

Urban Subtotal: - - 

Locally Owned or Maintained

Local Rural

Local Subtotal: - - 

Grand Total

(On and Off 

System): 

- - 

Notes:

• For installing edgeline rumble strips at locations with RwD, assumes improvement of 50% and 10% of

identified system and local locations, respectively. With the exception of interstates, the analysis excludes 

urban locations.

• Cost estimates based on $565 per mile per edge.

• CMF value of 0.84 used for installing edgeline rumble strips.

• Analysis based on locations where the observed number of crashes exceeded the expected number of 

crashes (using predictive analysis). 

Suggested implementation is as follows: 

1. A statewide database for existing edgeline rumble stripes/strips is not available. 

Consequently, the Plan assumes that these rumble strips are not present. Prior to initiating 

improvement projects, ABC Agency should inspect the candidate sites and confirm that 

the sites are viable options for this treatment. To overcome this potential limitation, the 

Plan assumes that only 50 percent of the identified State system locations can be 

addressed and only 10 percent of the local sites can be addressed. Following the site 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

29

inspections, ABC Agency may elect to adjust this assumption. As part of the field 

evaluation, ABC Agency staff should confirm the minimum pavement width.

2. The recommended application for edgeline rumble stripes/strips is restricted to roadways 

at rural locations only; however, it is possible that facilities classified as urban could be 

potential candidates for future centerline rumble stripes/strips. The rural locations are 

ranked in the Appendix B spreadsheet and should be used as a starting point for 

programming future improvement sites. ABC Agency staff may want to explore the 

potential for deploying this treatment at select urban locations where the noise generated 

by the rumble stripes/strips will not adversely impact the property owners along the 

corridor. 

SIX-INCH WIDE CENTERLINE PAVEMENT MARKINGS

The application of standard as well as 

wider pavement marking can help to 

provide positive guidance to the driver so 

that he or she does not deviate from the 

active travel lane. This treatment can be 

constructed individually (just a centerline) 

or in conjunction with wider edgeline 

pavement markings (resulting in centerline

and edgeline pavement markings). The 

application can occur at rural as well as 

urban locations. 

Table 20 demonstrates that the use of a 

wider centerline pavement marking does 

marginally reduce crashes (by 

approximately three percent). The 

treatment, however, in conjunction with 

companion pavement marking (i.e. fourinch or six-inch edgelines), is likely to help further reduce the number of crashes. The available 

CMF values primarily target all crashes on rural two-lane highways. 

Source: FHWA

Figure 3. Photograph. Six-inch centerline 

pavement markings.
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

30

Table 19. Six-Inch wide centerline pavement marking CMF values. 

Facility Type: Rural two-lane highway Crash Severity: All severity levels 

Crash Type: All CMF: 0.97 

Additional Information:

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/detail.cfm?facid=83#

Note:

• The primary facility type identified in previous studies focused on rural two-lane 

highways for all crash types and severity levels. The CMF value of 0.97 has been 

assumed for all road types.

• The FHWA CMF Clearinghouse uses a five-star rating scale to represent CMF quality 

where a value of five represents the highest or more reliable rating. The six-inch wide 

centerline pavement marking CMF value of 0.97 received a three-star rating at the 

CMF Clearinghouse. 

Table 21 summarizes the proposed improvement plan for six-inch centerline pavement marking 

applications. The Plan for deploying the recommended six-inch centerline pavement marking is 

expected to reduce total crashes by approximately xx crashes per year. This crash reduction also 

equates to a reduction of one fatal crash approximately every xx years. 

Suggested implementation is as follows: 

1. The use of six-inch wide centerline pavement markings is new to the ABC Agency. 

Consequently, the Plan assumes that these wider pavement markings are not present. 

Prior to initiating improvement projects, ABC Agency should inspect the candidate sites 

and confirm that the sites are viable options for this treatment. The Plan assumes that 

only 40 percent of the identified State system locations can be addressed and only 10 

percent of the local sites can be addressed. Following the site inspections, ABC Agency

may elect to adjust this assumption. 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

31

Table 20. Estimated RwD crash reductions for six-inch wide centerline pavement markings 

at rural locations.

Facility Type

Estimated 

Length of 

Improvements 

(mi)

Construction 

Cost ($ 

Million)

Ratio of 

Type K

to RwD 

Crashes

Ratio of 

Type 

KABC

to RwD 

Crashes

After Treatment – RwD Crashes

Annual 

Targeted 

RwD 

Crash 

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

K Crash

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

KABC 

Crash 

Reduction

On State System

Rural 2-lane

Rural Subtotal: - - 

Urban 2-lane

Urban multilane

undivided

Urban Subtotal: - - 

Locally Owned or Maintained

Local Rural

Local Urban

Local Subtotal: - - 

Grand Total

(On and Off 

System):

- - 

Notes:

• Rural and urban 2-lane roadways considered for this evaluation must have a pavement width of 24 ft or 

greater.

• For installing 6” wide centerline pavement markings at identified locations, the Plan assumes 

improvement of 40% of identified locations State system facilities and 10% of local facility candidate 

sites.

• Cost estimates based on $4510 per mi. 

• CMF value of 0.97 used for installing 6” wide centerline stripes. 

• Analysis based on locations where the observed number of crashes exceeded the expected number of 

crashes (using predictive analysis). Treatment not considered for divided roadways.

SIX-INCH WIDE EDGELINE PAVEMENT MARKINGS

The goal of an edgeline is to help delineate the edge of the roadway and ultimately minimize or 

reduce RwD crashes. The use of six-inch wide edge lines will further emphasize the edges of the 

travel area. Edgelines are appropriate at locations that also have centerline marking if the width 

of the road is sufficient to support motor vehicle travel in two directions. The application of 

edgelines can occur at rural as well as urban locations, though engineers often design urban 

roadways with raised curb so that the curb line is used for roadway edge delineation in lieu of an 

edgeline pavement marking.
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

32

Source: FHWA

Figure 4. Photograph. Six-inch wider edgeline pavement markings. 

Table 22 demonstrates that the use of a wider edgeline pavement marking helps to reduce single 

vehicle crashes by approximately 17 percent. The available CMF values primarily target all 

single vehicle crash types, though most of the related research has focused on rural two-lane 

highways. 

Table 21. Six-inch wide edgeline pavement marking CMF values. 

Facility Type: Rural two-lane highway Crash Severity: All severity levels 

Crash Type: Single Vehicle CMF: 0.63 to 0.83 (Install wider 

edgelines 4 in to 6 in) 

Additional Information:

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/detail.cfm?facid=4736#

and 

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/detail.cfm?facid=4737#

Notes: 

• The primary facility type identified in previous studies focused on rural two-lane 

highways for single vehicle crashes and severity levels. The CMF value ranged from 

0.63 to 0.83. For this Plan, the more conservative value of 0.83 has been assumed for 

all road types.

• The FHWA CMF Clearinghouse uses a five-star rating scale to represent CMF quality 

where a value of five represents the highest or more reliable rating. The six-inch wide 

edgeline pavement marking CMF value of 0.83 received a four-star rating at the CMF 

Clearinghouse. 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

33

The Appendix B spreadsheet summarizes potential sites where a wider edgeline pavement 

marking may be considered. The Plan ranks the sites based on how much the observed number 

of crashes exceeded the expected number of crashes for each location using the predictive safety 

assessment approach. This information is expanded upon in the Appendix A summary. Table 23

summarizes a proposed improvement plan for six-inch edgeline pavement marking applications. 

The Plan for deploying the recommended six-inch edgeline pavement marking is expected to 

reduce total crashes by approximately xx crashes per year. This crash reduction also equates to a 

reduction of approximately xx fatal crashes each year.

Table 22. Expected RwD crash reductions for six-inch wide edgelines.

Facility Type

Estimated 

Length of 

Improvements 

(mi)

Construction 

Cost ($ 

Million)

Ratio of 

Type K

to RwD 

Crashes

Ratio of 

Type 

KABC

to RwD 

Crashes

After Treatment – RwD Crashes

Annual 

Targeted 

RwD 

Crash 

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

K Crash

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

KABC 

Crash 

Reduction

On State System

Rural 2-lane

Rural Subtotal: - - 

Urban 2-lane

Urban multilane

undivided

Urban multilane 

divided

Urban Interstate

Urban Subtotal: - - 

Locally Owned or Maintained

Local Rural

Local Urban

Local Subtotal: - - 

Grand Total

(On and Off 

System):

- - 

Notes:

• Rural and urban roads considered for this treatment must have a pavement width of 25 ft or greater.

• For installing 6” wide edgeline pavement markings at locations with RwD crashes, assumes improvement 

of 40% and 10% for identified system and local sites, respectively. 

• Cost estimates based on $4510 per mile per edge. Each undivided segment assumed to have two edges and 

divided roads assumed to have four edges. Local roads assumed to have only two edges per facility.

• CMF value of 0.83 used for installing 6” wide centerline stripes.

• Analysis based on locations where the observed number of crashes exceeded the expected number of 

crashes during the five-year period (using predictive analysis).

Suggested implementation is as follows: 

The use of six-inch wide edgeline pavement markings is new to ABC Agency. Consequently, the 

Plan assumes that these wider pavement markings are not present. Prior to initiating 

improvement projects, ABC Agency should inspect the candidate sites and confirm that the sites 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

34

are viable options for this treatment. The Plan assumes that only 40 percent of the identified 

State system locations can be addressed and only 10 percent of the local sites can be addressed. 

Following the site inspections, ABC Agency may elect to adjust this assumption. 

CENTERLINE RAISED PAVEMENT MARKINGS

The application of centerline raised pavement markings can 

complement existing centerline striping while also enhancing the 

positive guidance provided for the driver so that he or she does not 

deviate from the active travel lane. This treatment can be 

positioned on the pavement surface or, in regions with frequent 

snow, can be embedded so that it is snowplow able. For the 

purposes of the ABC Agency Plan, the treatment is assumed to be 

a surface epoxy coated treatment. The application can occur at rural 

or urban locations. 

Table 24 demonstrates that the use of centerline raised pavement 

markings provide a crash reduction of approximately 15 percent. 

© TTI

Figure 5. Photograph. Centerline raised pavement markings.

Table 23. Centerline raised pavement marking CMF values. 

Facility 

Type: 

Rural Principal Arterial, 

Freeways, Expressways

Crash Severity: All

Crash Type: All CMF: 0.81 (AADT < 60,000) 

0.87 (AADT ≥ 60,000)

Used 0.85 value 

Additional Information:

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/detail.cfm?facid=5496

and 

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/detail.cfm?facid=5498

Notes: 

• The primary target crash identified in previous studies focused on all crashes. 

Currently, high quality safety performance functions are available based on a ABC 

Agency study that evaluated the addition of both centerline and edgeline raised 

pavement markers. This Plan utilizes a value of 0.85 for all RwD crashes for all facility 

types. 

• The FHWA CMF Clearinghouse uses a five-star rating scale to represent CMF quality 

where a value of five represents the highest or most reliable rating. The raised 

pavement marking CMF value of 0.81 and 0.87 each received a five-star rating at the 

CMF Clearinghouse. 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

35

Table 25 summarizes the proposed improvement plan for centerline raised pavement marking 

applications. The Plan for deploying the recommended treatment is expected to reduce total 

crashes by approximately xx crashes per year. This crash reduction also equates to a reduction of 

one to two fatal crashes each year.

Suggested implementation is as follows: 

1. Information about locations with centerline raised pavement markings already present 

was not available at the time of Plan development. The Plan assumes that these pavement 

markings are not present. Prior to initiating improvement projects, ABC Agency should 

inspect the candidate sites and confirm that the sites are viable options for this treatment. 

To overcome this potential limitation, the Plan assumes that only 40 percent of the 

identified State system locations can be addressed and only 10 percent of the local sites 

can be addressed. Following the site inspections, ABC Agency may elect to adjust this 

assumption. 

2. As previously noted, the most common application of centerline raised pavement 

markings is to apply the treatment to the pavement surface using an epoxy. At high traffic 

locations, placement where heavy vehicles may regularly traverse over the markers, or 

locations prone to extreme winter weather, consideration may be given to the use of 

embedded pavement markers. These types of installations are considerably more 

expensive than those used for standard pavement markers. This Plan assumes the more 

common and less expensive application.
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

36

Table 24. Estimated RwD crash reductions for centerline raised pavement markings. 

Facility Type

Estimated 

Length of 

Improvements 

(mi)

Construction 

Cost ($ 

Million)

Ratio of 

Type K

to RwD 

Crashes

Ratio of 

Type 

KABC

to RwD 

Crashes

After Treatment – RwD Crashes

Annual 

Targeted 

RwD 

Crash 

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

K Crash

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

KABC 

Crash 

Reduction

On State System

Rural 2-lane

Rural multilane

undivided

Rural Subtotal: - - 

Urban 2-lane

Urban multilane

undivided

Urban Subtotal: - - 

Locally Owned or Maintained

Local Rural

Local Urban

Local Subtotal: - - 

Grand Total

(On and Off 

System):

- - 

Notes:

• For installing raised pavement markers at locations with opposite direction sideswipe and head-on crashes, 

assumes improvement of 40% and 10% of identified system and local locations, respectively.

• Cost estimates based on $475/mi. 

• CMF value of 0.85 used for installing centerline raised pavement markers. Published literature varies 

regarding the effectiveness of these RPMs on crash reduction, but when used for enhanced visibility as 

well as a “surrogate” profile rumble strip, the CMF for centerline rumbles strips seems reasonable.

• Analysis based on locations where the observed number of crashes exceeded the expected number of 

crashes (using predictive analysis). Treatment not considered for divided roadways or urban locations.
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

37

EDGELINE RAISED PAVEMENT MARKINGS

The application of edgeline raised pavement markings can complement existing edgeline striping 

while also enhancing the positive guidance provided for the driver so that he or she does not 

deviate from the active travel lane. This treatment can be positioned on the pavement surface or, 

in regions with frequent snow, can be embedded so that it is snowplow able. For the purposes of 

the ABC Agency Plan, the treatment is assumed to be a surface epoxy coated treatment. The 

application can occur at rural or urban locations 

Table 26 demonstrates that the use of edgeline raised pavement markings provide a crash 

reduction of approximately 15 percent.

Table 25. Edgeline raised pavement marking CMF values. 

Facility 

Type: 

Rural Principal Arterial, 

Freeways, Expressways

Crash Severity: All

Crash Type: All CMF: 0.81 (AADT < 60,000) 

0.87 (AADT ≥ 60,000)

Used 0.85 value 

Additional Information:

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/detail.cfm?facid=5496

and 

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/detail.cfm?facid=5498

Notes: 

• The primary target crash identified in previous studies focused on all crashes. 

Currently, high quality safety performance functions are available based on a ABC 

Agency study that evaluated the addition of both centerline and edgeline raised 

pavement markers. This Plan utilizes a value of 0.85 for all RwD crashes for all facility 

types. 

• The FHWA CMF Clearinghouse uses a five-star rating scale to represent CMF quality 

where a value of five represents the highest or most reliable rating. The raised 

pavement marking CMF value of 0.81 and 0.87 each received a three-star rating at the 

CMF Clearinghouse. 

Table 27 summarizes the proposed improvement plan for edgeline raised pavement marking 

applications. The Plan for deploying the recommended treatment is expected to reduce total 

crashes by approximately xx crashes per year. This crash reduction also equates to a reduction of 

two to three fatal crashes each year.
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

38

Table 26. Estimated RwD crash reductions for edgeline raised pavement markings. 

Facility Type

Estimated 

Length of 

Improvements 

(mi)

Construction 

Cost ($ 

Million)

Ratio of 

Type K

to RwD 

Crashes

Ratio of 

Type 

KABC

to RwD 

Crashes

After Treatment – RwD Crashes

Annual 

Targeted 

RwD 

Crash 

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

K Crash

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

KABC 

Crash 

Reduction

On State System

Rural 2-lane

Rural multilane

undivided

Rural Subtotal: - - 

Urban 2-lane

Urban multilane

undivided

Urban multilane 

divided

Urban Interstate

Urban Subtotal: - - 

Locally Owned or Maintained

Local Rural

Local Urban

Local Subtotal: - - 

Grand Total

(On and Off 

System): 

- - 

Notes:

• For installing edgeline raised pavement markers at locations with RwD crashes, assumes improvement of 

40% and 10% of identified system and local locations, respectively.

• Cost estimates based on $475/mi per edge. Each undivided segment assumed to have two edges and 

divided roads assumed to have four edges. Local roads assumed to have only two edges per facility.

• CMF value of 0.85 used for installing edgeline raised pavement markers. Published literature varies 

regarding the effectiveness of these RPMs on crash reduction, but when used for enhanced visibility as 

well as a “surrogate” profile rumble strip, the CMF for edgeline rumbles strips seems reasonable.

• Analysis based on locations where the observed number of crashes exceeded the expected number of 

crashes (using predictive analysis). 

Suggested implementation is as follows: 

1. Information about locations with edgeline raised pavement markings already present was 

not available at the time of Plan development. The Plan assumes that these pavement 

markings are not present. Prior to initiating improvement projects, ABC Agency should 

inspect the candidate sites and confirm that the sites are viable options for this treatment. 

To overcome this potential limitation, the Plan assumes that only 40 percent of the 

identified State system locations can be addressed and only 10 percent of the local sites 

can be addressed. Following the site inspections, ABC Agency may elect to adjust this 

assumption. 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

39

2. As previously noted, the most common application of edgeline raised pavement markings 

is to apply the treatment to the pavement surface using an epoxy. At high traffic 

locations, placement where heavy vehicles may regularly traverse over the markers, or 

locations prone to extreme winter weather, consideration may be given to the use of 

embedded pavement markers. These types of installations are considerably more 

expensive than those used for standard pavement markers. This Plan assumes the more 

common and less expensive application.

LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS

The strategic positioning of streetlights at critical locations, such as intersections or sharp 

horizontal curves (as depicted in Figure 6), can help to enhance roadway visibility and therefore 

reduce nighttime collisions. Transportation agencies often install lighting at locations with a 

pattern of nighttime RwD crashes or conditions where this type of crash is likely. For rural areas, 

an agency can encounter challenges deploying lighting if electrical service is not available at 

more remote locations. As the number of lanes, access points, changes in horizontal or vertical 

alignment, or parking increases, the demand for lighting increases. 

Source: FHWA

Figure 6. Photograph. Adding lighting improvements at key isolated locations. 

Table 28 demonstrates that the addition of lighting improvements reduces nighttime crashes by 

approximately 17 to 28 percent. The available CMF values primarily target nighttime crashes for 

all roadway facilities. 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

40

Table 27. CMF values for lighting improvements.

Facility Type: All Crash Severity: ABC and O

Crash Type: Nighttime CMF: 0.72 (ABC Severity) 

0.83 (O Severity) [Used a 

CMF value of 0.80] 

Additional Information:

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/detail.cfm?facid=192

and 

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/detail.cfm?facid=193

Notes:

• Previous studies have focused on all facility types, but the target crash type is a 

nighttime crash with injury or property damage only crash severity. The CMF value 

ranged from 0.72 to 0.83. For this Plan, the value of 0.80 has been assumed for all road 

types. 

• The FHWA CMF Clearinghouse uses a five-star rating scale to represent CMF quality 

where a value of five represents the highest or more reliable rating. The highway 

lighting CMF values of 0.72 and 0.83 received four-star ratings at the CMF 

Clearinghouse. 

The Appendix B spreadsheet summarizes potential sites where lighting improvements may be 

considered. The Plan ranked sites based on the frequency of observed crashes during nighttime 

conditions where supplemental lighting was not available. This information is expanded upon in 

the Appendix A summary. Table 29 summarizes a proposed plan for lighting improvements. The 

plan for deploying the recommended street lighting is expected to reduce total crashes by 

approximately seven crashes per year.

Suggested implementation is as follows: 

1. The basis for the Plan recommendation to install lighting improvements is to reduce 

nighttime RwD crashes. Because lighting may require supplemental power, a first step 

towards implementation it to determine if and where lighting can be supported by solar 

power versus hardwired electrical power. For rural locations that require physical 

electrical wiring, ABC Agency should inspect the sites to determine how or if this 

service can be provided. Prior to initiating improvement projects, ABC Agency staff 

should inspect the candidate sites and confirm that the sites are viable options for this 

treatment. To overcome this potential limitation, the Plan assumes that only 40 percent of 

the identified locations can be addressed. Following the site inspections, ABC Agency 

may elect to adjust this assumption. 

2. A common strategy for adding lighting is to share poles with other utilities so that the 

department can minimize the number of roadside fixed objects. If, for example, electrical 

service is available it may also be practical to coordinate with the power company or 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

41

owner of the existing poles to mount lighting standards on their poles. ABC Agency

should explore if this option is acceptable and, if deemed appropriate, coordinate with 

regional utility companies to determine common locations identified during the ranking 

process that correspond to identified share pole locations.

3. If solar powered lights are determined to be practical, ABC Agency should finalize 

specifications for the lights and determine suitable locations based on the ranked sites 

included in the Appendix B spreadsheet. 

Table 28. Estimated RwD nighttime crash lighting improvements for sites with no previous 

lighting.

Facility Type

Estimated 

Number of 

Locations

Construction 

Cost ($ 

Million)

Ratio of 

Type K

to RwD 

Crashes

Ratio of 

Type 

KABC

to RwD 

Crashes

After Treatment – RwD Crashes

Annual 

Targeted 

RwD 

Crash 

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

K Crash

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

KABC 

Crash 

Reduction

On State System

Rural 2-lane

Rural multilane 

divided

Rural Interstate

Rural Subtotal: - - 

Urban 2-lane

Urban multilane 

divided

Urban Interstate

Urban Subtotal: - - 

Locally Owned or Maintained

Local Rural

Local Subtotal: - - 

Grand Total

(On and Off 

System): 

- - 

Notes: 

• For lighting installation or improvements, assumes improvement of 5% of identified system and local 

locations. This low distribution is due to limited authority of lighting installations (particularly on State 

facilities).

• Cost estimates based on $30,000 per location (assumes 3 lights for each identified location).

• CMF value of 0.80 used for lighting improvements. 

• Based on an elevated observed crash level threshold of 10 to 19 crashes into a utility pole or light support 

within a 5-year period.
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

42

HIGH FRICTION SURFACE TREATMENTS

High Friction Surface Treatment (HFST) is an innovative pavement treatment that incorporates 

the application of high-quality calcined bauxite aggregate to the pavement surface using a 

polymer binder. This pavement treatment is an effective way to improve friction at intersection 

and sharp horizontal curve locations where standing water is likely to occur or where the 

pavement friction is not suitable. HFST can be an effective alternative at locations with sharp 

horizontal curvature and insufficient superelevation, because HFST can be constructed in lieu of 

more costly alternatives like geometric changes that require a flatter horizontal curve or 

superelevation wedge construction. This application then results in enhanced skid resistance and 

helps vehicles maintain their path at critical locations. HFST can provide enhanced road surface 

performance for both wet and dry pavements. HFST can also provide improved friction at ramp 

locations with abrupt speed changes.

The common influential factors of horizontal curvature (specifically required superelevation runoff and run-out) as well as vertical curvature can work together to limit pavement surface 

friction. For this implementation plan, calculations for candidate locations for HFST in the ABC 

Agency per the computations below are based on prospective locations that are likely to have flat

spots (due to inadequate superelevation and vertical grade interactions) and that do not maintain 

an effective slope of 2 percent or greater. These locations have been calculated based on the 

superelevation run-off and run-out length at the point of curvature and point of tangency for 

horizontal curves using available horizontal curve information (e.g., design speed, curve radius, 

maximum superelevation). The location where the cross-slope has a value of zero (at the 

superelevation transition) can then be contrasted to the known vertical grade information at that 

specific milepoint. If the vertical grade at a milepoint with a zero cross-slope value is between -

2% and 2%, the horizontal curve may be a location that may be subjected to standing water 

during rain events. The analysis method used for identifying these candidate flat spots is 

described as follows:

1. Calculate the length of run-out for each curve using the equation in figure 7:

Figure 7. Equation. Calculation for the length of run-out for each curve.

Where,

L = length of superelevation run-out (mile);

W = lane width (ft); 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

43

Slope Change = change in vertical slope (ft/ft);

Lane Factor can be found in the ABC Agency Design Manual (2017 July Version, page 

4-19).

2. Calculate the milepost (MP) of level point (MP of PC – 0.8 * length of run-out). 

3. Check the vertical grade of the MP of level point. 

4. Determine if potential drainage issue exists (i.e., flag as drainage issue if vertical grade is 

between -2% and 2%). 

Source: FHWA

Figure 8. Photograph. High friction surface treatment.

Table 30 notes that High Friction Surface Treatments have shown impressive safety-related 

results. Currently additional data is being collected by FHWA to develop a more mature and 

fully vetted crash modification factor for this treatment. Consequently, the observed crash 

reductions that range from 57 up to 90 percent conservatively support a crash modification value 

of 0.70. 

Table 29. CMF values for high friction surface treatments.

Facility Type: All Crash 

Severity: 

All

Crash Type: All crashes at high risk locations 

(see discussion below)

CMF: 0.70 

Additional Information:

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/pavement_friction/high_friction/

Notes: 

As noted in the previous text, an overall CMF for high friction surface treatment is 

preliminary. This relatively new treatment type has already proven to be effective, but studies 

are currently underway to better quantify the safety effectiveness. By its nature, the typical 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

44

application of a high friction surface treatment occurs at a high crash location with good 

existing pavement conditions. Applications are commonly located at horizontal curves with 

small radii, steep vertical approaches at intersections, or ramps with abrupt changes in speed. 

As part of the site analysis, ABC Agency should assess the quality of the existing pavement. 

Studies report remarkable results including crash reductions by as much as 57 to 90 percent. 

One cited study at the FHWA link above notes that this treatment can reduce crashes by 

approximately 31 percent. Consequently, this Plan uses a conservative value of CMF=0.70. 

Table 31 summarizes a proposed improvement plan for High Friction Surface Treatment 

applications for ABC Agency facilities. The Plan for deploying the recommended High Friction 

Surface Treatment applications is expected to reduce total crashes by approximately 16 crashes

per year. This crash reduction also equates to approximately one fatal crashes every four years. 

Table 30. Predicted RwD crash reductions for high friction surface treatment applications.

Facility Type

Estimated 

Number of 

Improvements

Construction 

Cost ($ 

Million)

Ratio of 

Type K

to RwD 

Crashes

Ratio of 

Type 

KABC

to RwD 

Crashes

After Treatment – RwD Crashes

Annual 

Targeted 

RwD 

Crash 

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

K Crash

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

KABC 

Crash 

Reduction

On State System

Rural 2-lane

Rural multilane

undivided

Rural Subtotal: - - 

Urban 2-lane

Urban multilane

undivided

Urban multilane 

divided

Urban Interstate

Urban Subtotal: - - 

Locally Owned or Maintained

Local Rural

Local Urban

Local Subtotal: - - 

Grand Total

(On and Off 

System): 

- - 

Notes:

• For the installation of high friction surface treatments, assumes improvement of only 2% of identified 

locations.

• Cost estimates based on $35 per square yard with an assumed typical application that is 30 feet wide and 

1500 feet long. Only one application assumed per location.

• CMF value of 0.70 used for high friction surface treatment improvements.

• Selection of system facilities based on sites where the observed number of crashes exceeds the expected 

number of crashes by 20%. For local roads, identified sites experienced 4 or more RwD crashes.
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

45

Suggested implementation is as follows: 

1. The placement of HFST should be targeted for locations where the road surface friction is 

not sufficient for vehicles to adequately maintain their path, particularly during wet

weather conditions. HFST should only be used at locations where the existing pavement 

surface is in good condition. For this application, “good condition” refers to where there 

is not any evidence of pavement deficiencies that would indicate compromised integrity 

of the pavement structure. Common applications of HFST are at curve locations where 

the pavement surface does not always maintain proper drainage or at high speed 

intersections with steep vertical approaches. The sites identified as part of this plan are 

based on locations with horizontal curve transitions that do not maintain a two percent 

effective grade throughout the transition region.

2. The data used to identify potential locations is based on an assumed horizontal curve 

superelevation transition length as defined in the standard highway standards. Prior to 

implementing this treatment, it would be advisable for ABC Agency staff to conduct 

field evaluations to confirm site suitability and priority.

STATIC CURVE WARNING SIGN (STANDARD) 

Often horizontal curves have visibility issues due to their geometry, roadway configuration, 

roadside landscape, and a variety of other potentially problematic roadway elements. To 

enhance the visibility of a horizontal curve, a variety of signing options are available. Curve 

warning signs are needed at locations with an advisory speed that is at least ten mph below the 

posted speed limit. Similarly, curve warning signs may be appropriate due to geometric features 

including length, radius, shoulders, or roadside features. In some instances, an unexpected 

feature may be located within the curve such as an intersection, geometric change, or similar. 

These example characteristics demonstrate the wide variety of issues that ultimately may trigger 

the need to install static curve warning signs. 

Source: FHWA

Figure 9. Photograph. Application of curve warning signs.
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

46

Table 32 indicates that deployment of static curve warning signs reduces crashes from 30 up to 

44 percent. For conservative applications that encompass rural two-lane highways, the Plan 

analysis used a crash modification factor of 0.70. 

Table 31. CMF values for static curve warning signs.

Facility Type: Not specified Crash Severity: ABC

Crash Type: Varies CMF: Varies ranging from 0.56 

(run off road) up to 0.70 

Additional Information:

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/detail.cfm?facid=71

and 

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/detail.cfm?facid=1910 

Notes: 

• Previous studies have focused on all facility types with varying crash types and injury 

levels. The CMF values ranged from 0.56 (for run-off-road crash types at principal 

arterials, freeways, and expressways) to 0.70 (for all crash types and unspecified road 

types). For this Plan, the conservative value of 0.70 has been assumed for all road 

types. 

• The FHWA CMF Clearinghouse uses a five-star rating scale to represent CMF quality 

where a value of five represents the highest or more reliable rating. The study that 

generated a CMF for static curve warning signs for higher speed arterials and freeways 

scored a three-star rating at the CMF Clearinghouse. The CMF for all crash types, 

unspecified road types, and injury crashes only received one-star rating.

The Appendix B spreadsheet summarizes potential sites where static curve warning signs may be 

considered (see Table A-26 for specific criteria). The Plan ranks the sites based on observed 

crash information for rural roadways associated with RwD crashes at horizontal curve locations. 

Table 33 summarizes a proposed improvement plan for deploying a static curve warning sign 

treatment. The Plan for deploying these static curve warning signs is expected to reduce rural 

crashes at horizontal curve locations by approximately 165 crashes per year. This equates to a 

reduction of approximately two to three fatal crashes each year.

Suggested implementation is as follows: 

1. The placement of static curve warning signs should be targeted for locations where the 

curve radius, roadway superelevation, posted speed, advisory speed, and/or roadside 

environment may be configured in such a way that that a driver is surprised by the road 

geometry or has a challenge navigating the corridor. The data used to identify potential 

locations included some, but not all, of these potential contributing factors. Consequently, 

a first step in implementing this treatment is for ABC Agency staff to conduct field 

evaluations using the prioritized list of sites included in Appendix B to confirm the need 

for these supplemental curve warning signs.
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

47

2. At locations where a driver needs additional warning, enhanced curve warning systems 

are recommended (see the next treatment in this Plan). Often, an agency deploys static 

curve warning signs and then ultimately adds enhanced features such as flashing beacons 

or larger signs if the problem persists. For this reason, implementation of the static curve 

warning signs and the enhanced curve warnings systems should be assessed together and 

only one initial treatment deployed per location. 

Table 32. Predicted RwD crash reductions based on the addition of static curve warning 

signs.

Facility Type 

Estimated 

Number of 

Locations

Construction 

Cost ($ 

Million)

Ratio of 

Type K

to RwD 

Crashes

Ratio of 

Type 

KABC

to RwD 

Crashes

After Treatment – RwD Crashes

Annual 

Targeted 

RwD 

Crash 

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

K Crash

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

KABC 

Crash 

Reduction

On State System

Rural 2-lane

Rural Subtotal: - - 

Urban 2-lane

Urban multilane

undivided

Urban multilane 

divided

Urban Subtotal: - - 

Locally Owned or Maintained

Local Rural

Local Urban

Local Subtotal: - - 

Grand Total

(On and Off 

System): 

- - 

Notes:

• Static horizontal curve signage based on 40% and 10% of system and local road locations, respectively.

• Cost estimates based on $3000 per location (assumed to be one application per section).

• CMF value of 0.70 used for static horizontal curve sign improvements.

• Analysis based on locations where the observed number of crashes exceeded the expected number of 

crashes (using predictive analysis).
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

48

ENHANCED CURVE WARNING SYSTEM

The road features that trigger static curve warning signs also apply to enhanced curve warning 

systems. An enhanced curve warning system can incorporate larger signs, better advanced 

warning, and in some cases companion flashing beacons to further enhance the curve warning 

system. 

Source: FHWA

Figure 10. Graphic. Enhanced curve warning systems.

Table 34 notes that crash modification factors vary for the enhanced curve warning sign 

treatment; however, a conservative value assumes an approximate 30-percent reduction in RwD 

crashes. This equates to a crash modification factor of 0.70.

Table 33. CMF values for enhanced curve warning signs.

Facility Type: Arterials, Freeways, and 

Expressways

Crash Severity: All

Crash Type: Run-off-road CMF: Varies but in range of 0.59 

up to 0.73 (Conservative 

value of CMF = 0.70 used) 

Additional Information:

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/detail.cfm?facid=1856

and 

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/detail.cfm?facid=1874 

Notes: 

• Previous studies have focused on all higher speed roads (arterials, freeways, and 

expressways) with run-off-road crash types and all injury levels. The CMF values 

ranged from 0.59 to 0.73. For this Plan, the conservative value of 0.70 has been 

assumed for all road types.

• The FHWA CMF Clearinghouse uses a five-star rating scale to represent CMF quality 

where a value of five represents the highest or more reliable rating. The study that 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

49

generated a CMF=0.59 for the enhanced curve warning system received four stars and 

the CMF = 0.73 received three stars. 

The Appendix B spreadsheet summarizes potential sites where enhanced curve warning system 

configurations may be considered. The Plan ranks the sites based on an evaluation of predicted 

crashes. The analysis focused on RwD crashes at horizontal curve locations. 

Table 35 summarizes a proposed improvement plan for deploying enhanced curve warning signs. 

The Plan for deploying these curve warning treatments is expected to reduce rural crashes at 

horizontal curve locations by approximately 17 crashes per year. This equates to a reduction of 

approximately one fatal crash every three to four years. 

Table 34. Estimated RwD crash reductions for implementation of enhanced curve warning 

signs.

Facility Type

Estimated 

Number of 

Locations

Construction 

Cost ($ 

Million)

Ratio of 

Type K

to RwD 

Crashes

Ratio of 

Type 

KABC

to RwD 

Crashes

After Treatment – RwD Crashes

Annual 

Targeted 

RwD 

Crash 

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

K Crash

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

KABC 

Crash 

Reduction

On State System

Rural 2-lane

Rural multilane

undivided

Rural multilane 

divided

Rural Subtotal: - - 

Urban 2-lane

Urban multilane

undivided

Urban multilane 

divided

Urban Subtotal: - - 

Locally Owned or Maintained

Local Rural

Local Urban

Local Subtotal: - - 

Grand Total

(On and Off 

System): 

- - 

Notes:

• Candidate sites for enhanced horizontal curve signage assumes 20% and 5% of system and local roads, 

respectively. 

• Cost estimates based on $3300 per one location.

• CMF value of 0.70 used for enhanced curve warning sign applications.

• Analysis based on locations where the observed number of crashes exceeded the expected number of 

crashes (using predictive analysis).
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

50

Suggested implementation is as follows: 

1. The placement of enhanced curve warning signs should be targeted for locations where 

the curve radius, roadway superelevation, posted speed, advisory speed, and/or roadside 

environment are configured in such a way that that a driver is surprised by the road 

geometry or has a challenge navigating the corridor. The data used to identify potential 

locations for this Plan considered rural locations with a horizontal curve radius of 1,000 ft 

or less (per the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Table 3F-1). A first step in 

implementing this treatment is for ABC Agency staff to conduct field evaluations using 

the prioritized list of sites included in Appendix B to confirm the need for these 

supplemental curve warning signs. 

2. At locations where a driver needs additional warning but where the location may not 

warrant extra signage or illumination, the use of static curve warning signs may be 

sufficient (see previous treatment). Often, an agency deploys static curve warning signs 

and then ultimately adds enhanced features such as flashing beacons or larger signs if the 

problems persist. For this reason, ABC Agency staff should assess the implementation of 

the enhanced curve warning systems and the static curve warnings signs at the same time 

and only deploy one initial treatment per location. 

UTILITY POLE RELOCATION

As shown in figure 11, the close lateral placement of utility poles near active traffic can result in 

severe roadway departure crashes. The only way to eliminate these potential hazards is to 

relocate the utility poles to locations where they 

no longer create a risk. This treatment can be 

challenging when the pole is located in the rightof-way where multiple users share the pole. 

Where feasible, relocation of the poles laterally 

can help to reduce the frequency and severity of 

crashes. Table 36 identifies source information 

for potential crash modification factors for utility 

pole relocation. Due to significant variability in 

pole positions prior to relocation, the estimated 

safety implications vary. The Plan assigned 

crash reductions of approximately 29 percent. 

© KHA

Figure 11. Photograph. Candidate relocation for utility pole (urban environment). 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

51

Table 35. CMF values for utility pole relocation.

Facility Type: All facilities (Rural 

Undivided for CMF shown) 

Crash Severity: Not specified

Crash Type: Fixed Object Crashes CMF: 0.40 to 0.64 for a 5’ to 10’ 

lateral shift

0.71 (per FHWA)

Additional Information:

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/detail.cfm?facid=5240#

and 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/hrrr/manual/sec47.cfm

Notes: 

• Previous studies have focused on rural undivided crashes into fixed objects. One study 

that evaluated the lateral offset of utility poles resulted in a crash modification function 

that contrasts the offset before and after the utility pole relocation. For this study, a 

lateral shift of ten feet is equivalent to a CMF value of 0.40 and a shift of five feet 

equates to a CMF of 0.64. The FHWA roadside HSIP manual website (noted above) 

notes a CMF that is less than or equal to 0.71. For this Plan, the conservative value of 

0.71 has been assumed for all road types.

• The FHWA CMF Clearinghouse uses a five-star rating scale to represent CMF quality 

where a value of five represents the highest or more reliable rating. The study that 

generated the crash modification function received a three-star rating. 

The Appendix B spreadsheet summarizes potential sites where utility pole relocation may be 

considered. The Plan ranks the sites based on observed crash information associated with RwD 

crashes into utility poles. This information is expanded upon in the Appendix A summary. Table 

37 summarizes a proposed improvement plan for utility pole relocations. The Plan for relocating 

utility poles is expected to reduce pole crashes by approximately 4 crashes per year. 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

52

Table 36. Estimated number of RwD crashes based on utility pole relocation.

Facility Type

Estimated 

Number of 

Affected 

Locations

Construction 

Cost ($ 

Million)

Ratio of 

Type K

to RwD 

Crashes

Ratio of 

Type 

KABC

to RwD 

Crashes

After Treatment – RwD Crashes

Annual 

Targeted 

RwD 

Crash 

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

K Crash

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

KABC 

Crash 

Reduction

On State System

Rural 2-lane

Rural multilane 

divided

Rural Subtotal: - - 

Urban 2-lane

Urban multilane

undivided

Urban multilane 

divided

Urban Interstate

Urban Subtotal: - - 

Locally Owned or Maintained

Local Rural

Local Subtotal: - - 

Grand Total

(On and Off 

System): 

- - 

Note:

• For utility pole relocation, assumes improvement of 10% of identified locations (both State system and 

local roads). 

• Cost estimates based on $10,000 per location and assume 5 or fewer pole relocations per site with a 

maximum cost of approximately $2000 per pole.

• CMF value of 0.71 used for the utility pole analysis.

• Based on a crash level threshold of 4 crashes into a utility pole or light support within a 5-year period. 

Suggested implementation is as follows:

1. Utility poles located in close proximity to the roadway can also behave as fixed objects 

subject to RwD crashes if their placement is not carefully considered. For many 

locations, existing utility poles preceded agency management. In other instances, the 

utility poles have been located as far from the roadway as practical for the surrounding 

terrain. Consequently, the lateral relocation of utility poles may not always be practical 

and an agency should consider shielding them. The ownership of a utility pole can also 

vary and more than one utility, including lighting, may depend on the specific utility pole 

placement. To determine feasibility of relocation, therefore, ABC Agency staff should 

first identify the pole owners and agencies sharing the pole and assess potential for 

relocation of these fixed objects. The ABC Agency could also work with agencies to 

identify safer placement locations of relocated utility poles. For this Plan, the identified 

locations are based on sites with a history of RwD crashes into utility poles (see list in 

Appendix B spreadsheet). 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

53

2. Often crashes into a single utility pole shift upstream and downstream over time. This 

trend suggests the likelihood that there are multiple poles collectively located too close to 

the road. When this trend is observed, the ABC Agency staff should consider initiating a 

project to relocate (or shield) all of the utility poles along a corridor. During field visits, 

inspectors can identify these issues by inspecting poles upstream and downstream of the 

identified corridor locations. Strong indications of this trend would be marks on the poles 

where a vehicle has scrubbed against the pole and left a scar. ABC Agency should 

consider prioritizing these utility pole corridors for improvement projects.

REMOVE OR SHIELD TREE OR FIXED OBJECTS

At locations where fixed objects are located on the roadside, an errant vehicle that inadvertently 

exits the roadway may impact these trees or fixed objects if they are positioned too close to the 

active travel way. When feasible, an agency should completely remove these fixed objects. In 

many cases, however, the objects may be a large number of trees and removal is simply not 

practical. For these locations, the agency should shield the trees that cannot be removed. 

© KHA

Figure 12. Graphic. Remove or shield trees or fixed objects. 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

54

Table 38 summarizes the safety performance resulting from removing or shielding trees or fixed 

objects. As shown, the published research varies substantially about the expected reduction in 

crashes, but a conservative expectation is an approximate reduction of 50 percent for fixed object 

crashes.

Table 37. CMF values to remove or shield trees or fixed objects.

Facility Type: All Crash Severity: All

Crash Type: Fixed Object, All CMF: 0.71 (Fixed Objects)

Additional Information:

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/detail.cfm?facid=2724

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/detail.cfm?facid=1044 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/hrrr/manual/sec47.cfm#s47j

Notes: 

• Previous studies have resulted in values that vary dramatically. Studies report CMF 

values of 0.03 (when applied only to fixed object crashes) and 0.62 (all crashes). A 

conservative CMF of 0.71 is suggested as part of the HSIP manual. For this analysis, 

the Plan utilizes a conservative CMF value of 0.71 as applied to fixed object crashes. 

• The FHWA CMF Clearinghouse uses a five-star rating scale to represent CMF quality 

where a value of five represents the highest or more reliable rating. The CMF = 0.03 

received a two-star rating, while the CMF = 0.62 received a three-star rating. 

The Appendix B spreadsheet summarizes potential sites where removing or shielding trees or 

fixed objects may be considered. The Plan ranks the sites based on observed crash information 

associated with RwD crashes into utility poles. This information is expanded upon in the 

Appendix A summary. Table 39 summarizes a proposed improvement plan for removing or 

shielding these roadside objects. The Plan for removing or shielding trees or fixed objects is 

expected to reduce fixed object crashes by approximately 30 crashes per year. This crash 

reduction also equates to a reduction of approximately one fatal crash every two years. 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

55

Table 38. Estimated RwD crash reduction based on removal or shielding of trees or fixed 

objects. 

Facility Type

Estimated 

Number of

Candidate

Locations (mi)

Construction 

Cost ($ 

Million)

Ratio of 

Type K

to RwD 

Crashes

Ratio of 

Type 

KABC

to RwD 

Crashes

After Treatment – RwD Crashes

Annual 

Targeted 

RwD 

Crash 

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

K Crash

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

KABC 

Crash 

Reduction

On State System

Rural 2-lane 246 $7.38 0.02 0.47 9.33 0.22 4.37

Rural multilane

undivided 2 $0.06 0.03 0.39 0.06 < 0.01 0.02

Rural multilane 

divided 19 $0.57 0.02 0.42 0.63 0.01 0.27

Rural Interstate 92 $2.76 0.02 0.33 5.83 0.10 1.93

Rural Subtotal: 359 $10.77 - - 15.85 0.33 6.59

Urban 2-lane 19 $0.57 0.01 0.36 0.75 0.01 0.27

Urban multilane

undivided 29 $0.87 0.01 0.35 1.11 0.01 0.39

Urban multilane 

divided 38 $1.14 0.01 0.34 1.60 0.02 0.54

Urban Interstate 131 $3.93 0.02 0.40 9.58 0.16 3.82

Urban Subtotal: 217 $6.51 - - 13.02 0.20 5.03

Locally Owned or Maintained

Local Rural 13 $0.39 0.01 0.36 0.48 0.01 0.16

Local Subtotal: 13 $0.39 - - 0.48 0.01 0.16

Grand Total

(On and Off 

System): 

589 $17.67 - - 29.35 0.54 11.77

Notes:

• For removal or shielding of trees or fixed objects, assumes improvement of 10% of identified locations.

• Cost estimates based on $30,000 per location.

• CMF value of 0.71 used for the tree/fixed object tree analysis.

• Based on a crash level threshold of 5 to 9 crashes into a tree or fixed object within a 5-year period. 

Suggested implementation is as follows: 

1. The placement of fixed objects in the clear recovery zone can result in an increase in the 

number of fixed object crashes. For isolated fixed objects, removal of the item is 

recommended; however, in many cases there are a series of objects and it is not practical 

to entirely remove the objects. In this scenario, it may be appropriate to shield them. This 

Plan identified sites where recurring fixed object crashes persist for rural and urban 

locations. As a first implementation step, ABC Agency staff should review the prioritized 

sites included in the Appendix B spreadsheet and determine if any of these locations 

overlap with proposed improvement or safety enhancement projects. For any of these 

overlapping sites, the removal or shielding of the fixed object should be addressed as part 

of these projects. If overlapping projects are not identified, the ABC Agency should 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

56

systematically being to address these sites by initiating projects to relocate (or shield) 

these fixed objects. 

2. This Plan also included a countermeasure to relocate utility poles (see previous treatment) 

and a variety of treatments to add or improve barriers. ABC Agency staff can explore 

these treatments collectively and one or more may potentially be considered for a given 

site; therefore, the ABC Agency should assess this treatment at the same time as these 

other treatments so that safety initiatives can be combined and duplication of efforts can 

be minimized. 

CULVERT END TREATMENT AND DITCH IMPROVEMENT

A preferred drainage treatment is to locate culverts and drainage ditches so that they are not 

located immediately adjacent to active travel lanes and, consequently do not pose threats to 

roadway users. In many cases, however, the available right-of-way constrains the placement of 

these drainage features. When this occurs, transportation professionals should design culvert end 

treatments and associated drainage ditches that are located in close proximity to a road so that 

they are traversable.

Source: FHWA

Figure 13. Photograph. Roadside culvert and treatment and associated ditch 

improvement.6

Table 40 summarizes published resources associated with the safety of culvert end treatment and 

ditch improvements; however, this proven treatment does not have a designated crash 

modification factor. For this reason, this Plan uses an estimated assumption that 50 percent of 

crashes related to culverts and ditches will be eliminated if these treatments are improved so that 

they are traversable or shifted laterally so that they no longer pose a threat to drivers of errant 

vehicles.
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

57

Table 39. CMF values for culvert end treatment and ditch improvement. 

Facility Type: Not Specified Crash Severity: All

Crash Type: Culvert end treatment and 

ditch RwD crashes

CMF: None documented – since

proven treatment assume 

CMF=0.50 (culvert end 

treatment and ditch related 

crashes)

Additional Information:

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/hrrr/manual/sec47.cfm

Note: Due to the unique site characteristics that govern this type of treatment, a CMF is not 

available but as noted in the FHWA HSIP Manual (see link above), this is a proven treatment.

The Appendix B spreadsheet summarizes potential sites where improving culvert end treatments 

and associated ditch sideslopes may be considered. The Plan ranks the sites based on observed 

crash information associated with RwD crashes into culverts or ditches. Appendix A expands on 

this information. Table 41 summarizes a proposed improvement plan for minimizing culvert or 

ditch related RwD crashes. The Plan for this treatment is expected to reduce RwD crashes by 

approximately 142 crashes per year. This crash reduction also equates to a reduction of 

approximately two to three fatal crashes each year.

Suggested implementation is as follows: 

1. The placement of culverts is common at driveway locations where the culvert aligns with 

the roadside ditch. In addition, often a culvert is positioned laterally across the road. The 

common issue associated with these treatments is that the orientation of the culvert 

treatments or the slopes associated with the roadside ditches have the potential to become 

roadside hazards. For this Plan, candidate locations where culvert end treatment and 

ditch-related crashes occur are priorities in the Appendix B spreadsheet. Prior to initiating 

an improvement project, ABC Agency staff should examine the individual sites and 

determine feasibility of improvement. The relocation of a roadside ditch, for example, 

may not be feasible and a site evaluation can help make this determination. Where 

possible, however, culvert end treatments should be modified to be traversable, shielded, 

or outside of the roadside clear zone. 

2. For locations where the relocation of the roadside ditch is not feasible or where a culvert 

cannot be modified or extended, an alternative option may be to shield the roadside areas 

with a barrier. For this reason, ABC Agency should explore this culvert end treatment 

and ditch improvement implementation plan at the same time as they consider the add 

barrier treatment option.
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

58

Table 40. Estimated RwD crash reductions for culvert end treatment and ditch 

improvement.

Facility Type

Estimated 

Number of 

Candidate 

Locations

(mi)

Construction 

Cost ($ 

Million)

Ratio of 

Type K

to RwD 

Crashes

Ratio of 

Type 

KABC

to RwD 

Crashes

After Treatment – RwD Crashes

Annual 

Targeted 

RwD 

Crash 

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

K Crash

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

KABC 

Crash 

Reduction

On State System

Rural 2-lane

Rural multilane

undivided

Rural multilane 

divided

Rural Interstate

Rural Subtotal: - - 

Urban 2-lane

Urban multilane

undivided

Urban multilane 

divided

Urban Interstate

Urban Subtotal:

Locally Owned or Maintained

Local Rural

Local Urban

Local Subtotal: - - 

Grand Total

(On and Off 

System): 

- - 

Notes:

• For culvert or ditch improvement, assumes improvement of 30% and 5% of identified system and local 

roadways, respectively. 

• Cost estimates based on $1000 per location.

• CMF value of 0.50 used for the culvert end treatment and ditch analysis.

• Based on a crash level threshold of 4 crashes into a culvert end treatment or ditch within a 5-year period. 

SHOULDER WIDENING WITH DRAINAGE GRADING IMPROVEMENTS

Roadways with minimal shoulder widths do not provide space for errant vehicles that exit their 

travel lane to correct their path (while still on a paved surface). Shoulders also provide a benefit 

for disabled vehicles to safely exit the active travel lanes. Consequently, providing wider 

shoulders can be an effective safety treatment. In many cases, however, a roadside ditch or other 

drainage feature will be affected due to this type of widening. When this occurs, the treatment 

should consider the shoulder widening and the drainage improvements collectively. 

Table 42 summarizes published resources associated with the safety of shoulder widening (this 

CMF is the same with or without the added cost of drainage improvements). This Plan used an 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

59

estimated assumption that 39 percent of crashes related to shoulder widths will be eliminated if 

the shoulders are widened to meet State guideline recommendations. 

Table 41. Shoulder widening with drainage grading improvements CMF values. 

Facility Type: Not Specified Crash Severity: All 

Crash Type: Run-off-road, Single Vehicle CMF: 0.61 [Run off road, single 

vehicle]

0.62 [all crash types] 

Additional Information:

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/detail.cfm?facid=6659

and 

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/detail.cfm?facid=6661

Notes: 

• The primary facility type identified in previous studies focused on a variety of roadway 

types and all severity levels. The CMF value of 0.61 has been assumed for shoulder 

widening activities.

• The FHWA CMF Clearinghouse uses a five-star rating scale to represent CMF quality 

where a value of five represents the highest or more reliable rating. The shoulder 

widening CMF values of 0.61 and 0.62 both received a four-star rating at the CMF 

Clearinghouse. For the purposes of this Plan, the CMF=0.61 value has been used. 

The Appendix B spreadsheet summarizes potential sites where widening the shoulder should be 

considered. The Plan ranks the sites based on predicted crash information. Table 43 summarizes 

a proposed improvement plan for minimizing RwD crashes associated with narrow shoulders. 

The Plan for this treatment is expected to reduce RwD crashes by approximately 75 crashes per 

year. This crash reduction also equates to the elimination of approximately one fatal crash each 

year. 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

60

Table 42. Estimated RwD crash reductions for shoulder widening with drainage grading 

improvements.

Facility Type

Estimated 

Length of 

Improvements 

(mi)

Construction 

Cost ($ 

Million)

Ratio of 

Type K

to RwD 

Crashes

Ratio of 

Type 

KABC

to RwD 

Crashes

After Treatment – RwD Crashes

Annual 

Targeted 

RwD 

Crash 

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

K Crash

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

KABC 

Crash 

Reduction

On State System

Rural 2-lane

Rural Subtotal: - - 

Urban 2-lane

Urban multilane

undivided

Urban multilane 

divided

Urban Subtotal: - - 

Locally Owned or Maintained

Local Rural

Local Urban

Local Subtotal: - - 

Grand Total

(On and Off 

System): 

- - 

Notes:

• For widening highway shoulders with drainage grading improvements, the Plan assumes improvement of 

10% and 5% of identified system and local locations, respectively.

• Cost estimates based on $80,000 per mile for two lane or local roads up to $200,000 per mile for multilane 

roads.

• CMF value of 0.61 used for installing Shoulder widening with drainage grading improvements. 

• Analysis based on locations where the observed number of crashes exceeded the expected number of 

crashes (using predictive analysis) by 20% or more. 

Suggested implementation is as follows: 

The widening of roadway shoulders and upgrade of adjacent drainage is generally considered to 

be a rural issue; however, a small number of urban sites that do not have raised curb with an 

enclosed drainage system could also be viable candidates for this type of a treatment. For this 

Plan, candidate locations that would benefit from shoulder widening and associated drainage 

improvements are included in the Appendix B spreadsheet. The need for drainage improvements 

is a site-specific issue. Prior to initiating an improvement project, ABC Agency staff should 

examine the individual sites and determine feasibility of improvement and assess if the shoulder 

widening can be accomplished without drainage grading improvements. If the drainage 

improvements are not required, then the next treatment (shoulder widening without drainage 

grading improvements) should be implemented. 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

61

SHOULDER WIDENING WITHOUT DRAINAGE GRADING IMPROVEMENTS

Roadways with minimal shoulder widths do not provide space for errant vehicles that exit their 

travel lane to correct their path (while still on a paved surface). Shoulders also provide a benefit 

for disabled vehicles to safely exit the active travel lanes. Consequently, providing wider 

shoulders can be an effective safety treatment. In many cases, however, a roadside ditch or other 

drainage feature will be affected due to this type of widening. When this occurs, the treatment 

should consider the shoulder widening and the drainage improvements collectively (see previous 

treatment). In other cases, the road sideslope may be relatively flat and this grade can 

accommodate shoulder widening without significant drainage improvements. 

© TTI

Figure 14. Photograph. Shoulder pavement candidate.
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

62

Table 44 summarizes published resources associated with the safety of shoulder widening (this 

CMF is the same with or without the added cost of drainage improvements). This Plan used an 

estimated assumption that 39 percent of crashes related to shoulder widths will be eliminated if 

the shoulders are widened to meet State guideline recommendations. 

Table 43. Shoulder widening without drainage grading improvements CMF values. 

Facility Type: Not Specified Crash Severity: All 

Crash Type: Run-off-road, Single Vehicle CMF: 0.61 [Run off road, single 

vehicle]

0.62 [all crash types] 

Additional Information:

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/detail.cfm?facid=6659

and 

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/detail.cfm?facid=6661

Notes: 

• The primary facility type identified in previous studies focused on a variety of roadway 

types and all severity levels. The CMF value of 0.61 has been assumed for shoulder 

widening activities.

• The FHWA CMF Clearinghouse uses a five-star rating scale to represent CMF quality 

where a value of five represents the highest or more reliable rating. The shoulder 

widening CMF values of 0.61 and 0.62 both received a four-star rating at the CMF 

Clearinghouse. For the purposes of this Plan, the CMF=0.61 value has been used. 

The Appendix B spreadsheet summarizes potential sites where widening the shoulder should be 

considered. The Plan ranks the sites based on predicted crash information. Table 45 summarizes 

a proposed improvement plan for minimizing RwD crashes associated with narrow or no 

shoulders. The Plan for this treatment is expected to reduce RwD crashes by approximately 56 

crashes per year. This crash reduction also equates to the elimination of approximately one fatal 

crash each year. 

Suggested implementation is as follows: 

The widening of roadway shoulders is generally considered to be a rural issue; however, a small 

number of urban sites that do not have raised curb could also be viable candidates for this type of 

a treatment. For this Plan, candidate locations that would benefit from shoulder widening and 

that do not require additional drainage improvements are included in the Appendix B 

spreadsheet. The need for drainage improvements is a site-specific issue. Prior to initiating an 

improvement project, ABC Agency staff should examine the individual sites and determine 

feasibility of improvement and assess if the shoulder widening can be accomplished without 

drainage grading improvements. If the drainage improvements are required, then the previous 

treatment (shoulder widening with drainage grading improvements) should be implemented. 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

63

Table 44. Estimated RwD crash reductions for shoulder widening without drainage 

grading improvements.

Facility Type

Estimated 

Length of 

Improvements 

(mi)

Construction 

Cost ($ 

Million)

Ratio of 

Type K

to RwD 

Crashes

Ratio of 

Type 

KABC

to RwD 

Crashes

After Treatment – RwD Crashes

Annual 

Targeted 

RwD 

Crash 

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

K Crash

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

KABC 

Crash 

Reduction

On State System

Rural 2-lane

Rural Subtotal: - - 

Urban 2-lane

Urban multilane

undivided

Urban multilane 

divided

Urban Subtotal: - - 

Locally Owned or Maintained

Local Rural

Local Urban

Local Subtotal: - - 

Grand Total

(On and Off 

System): 

- - 

Notes:

• For widening highway shoulders without drainage grading improvements, the Plan assumes improvement 

of 10% and 2% of identified system and local locations, respectively.

• Cost estimates based on $65,000 for two lane or local roads up to $165,000 for multilane roads.

• CMF value of 0.61 used for widening shoulders without drainage grading improvements. 

• Analysis based on locations where the observed number of crashes exceeded the expected number of 

crashes (using predictive analysis) by 20% or greater. 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

64

FLATTENING MEDIAN SIDESLOPES

In some instances, such as extreme terrain locations, an errant vehicle cannot safely traverse the 

adjacent median sideslope. This trend tends to occur when the ratio of vertical to horizontal 

slopes is steeper than one foot vertically for every three feet horizontally. If this steeper grade is 

sustained, an errant vehicle may not be able to recover and could overturn. Table 46

demonstrates that flattening median sideslopes can result in a reduction of approximately 42 

percent of overturn crashes. 

Table 45. CMF values for flattening median sideslopes.

Facility Type: Divided roadway Crash Severity: All

Crash Type: Overturn / Rollover CMF: 0.58 (per FHWA)

0.91 (cross median, fixed 

object, and run-off-road)

[Used CMF = 0.91] 

Additional Information:

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/hrrr/manual/sec47.cfm 

and 

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/detail.cfm?facid=6914

Notes: 

• Flattening sideslopes is a potential treatment for the roadside slope adjacent to the 

paved surface. The FHWA reference above notes that this type of improvement is 

appropriate on the outside of horizontal curves, locations where the roadside sideslopes 

exceed values of a 1 (Vertical):3 (Horizontal) slope, or sites experiencing overturn 

crashes. The FHWA site suggests a CMF value of approximately 0.58 may be suitable 

for flattening roadway sideslopes. This Plan uses the CMF Clearinghouse value of 

0.91. 

• Research documented in NCHRP Report 794: Median Cross-Section Design for Rural 

Divided Highways notes a CMF value of 0.91 for cross median, fixed object, and runoff-road crashes at rural divided highway locations. The FHWA CMF Clearinghouse 

uses a five-star rating scale to represent CMF quality where a value of five represents 

the highest or more reliable rating. The CMF = 0.91 received a three-star rating. 

The Appendix B spreadsheet summarizes potential sites where flattening median sideslopes at 

locations that do not have median barrier may be considered. The Plan focuses on divided 

multilane highways and ranks the sites based on observed crash information associated with 

rollover RwD crashes at these locations. Appendix A expands on this information. Table 47

summarizes a proposed improvement plan for minimizing crashes that occur at these steep 

median sideslope locations. Due to the limited number of sites identified, this treatment can be 

expected to result in a reduction of approximately one crash each year. 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

65

Table 46. Estimated RwD crash reductions due to flattening median sideslopes. 

Facility Type

Estimated 

Length of 

Improvements 

(mi)

Construction 

Cost ($ 

Million)

Ratio of 

Type K

to RwD 

Crashes

Ratio of 

Type 

KABC

to RwD 

Crashes

After Treatment – RwD Crashes

Annual 

Targeted 

RwD 

Crash 

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

K Crash

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

KABC 

Crash 

Reduction

On State System

Urban Interstate

Urban Subtotal: - - 

Grand Total

(On and Off 

System): 

- - 

Notes:

• For flattening median sideslopes, one site (an urban interchange) had 20 to 29 RwD crashes during a fiveyear period and so this site is suggested as the best potential candidate for this treatment. Based on cost 

effectiveness, this is the only initial recommendation for this treatment.

• Cost estimates of $792,000 per mile (based on $150 per foot x 5280 feet). 

• CMF value of 0.91 used for flattening median sideslope analysis.

Suggested implementation is as follows: 

1. The identification of candidate improvement locations included in this Plan is based on 

locations that are divided highways where currently median barrier is not present and 

where rollover crashes occur. Prior to initiating these improvement efforts, ABC Agency

staff should examine the identified locations to determine the feasibility of flattening the 

sideslopes. The Appendix B spreadsheet identifies these candidate sites, but this Plan is 

based on an assumption that one specific urban interstate site can be improved. ABC 

Agency staff may want to assess this assumption and modify it following this field 

inspection step. 

2. Flattening the sideslope for an existing median can introduce additional issues including 

drainage modification, removal of existing fixed objects, and substantial import of 

suitable soil material. Consequently, the ABC Agency staff should consider evaluation of 

the treatment in conjunction with that of adding median barrier to minimize redundant 

assessments. It may also be appropriate to consider only one of the treatment options, and 

this joint assessment will help to identify the optimal solution.

ADD BARRIER

In the event that roadway improvements cannot prevent a vehicle from inadvertently exiting the 

roadway, the ABC Agency should design the roadside environment to minimize crash severity. 

One common way to reduce crash severity is to install roadside barriers. Table 48 notes that the 

addition of a barrier can result in an approximate 16 percent reduction in run-off-road crashes.

For this analysis the barrier type cost is based on guardrail. 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

66

Table 47. CMF values for adding barrier

Facility Type: Varies (2 to 5 lanes) Crash Severity: KABC

Crash Type: Run-off-road CMF: 0.84 

Additional Information: 

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/detail.cfm?facid=8348#commentanchor

Note: 

The CMF Clearinghouse includes a variety of “add barrier” studies and the associated CMF 

values differ substantially for the varying studies. Consequently, the CMF=0.84 value is used 

because it is from a United States evaluation and developed using reliable statistical 

procedures. The FHWA CMF Clearinghouse uses a five-star rating scale to represent CMF 

quality where a value of five represents the highest or more reliable rating. The CMF = 0.84 

received a four-star rating.

The Appendix B spreadsheet summarizes sites where the potential addition of roadside barrier is 

expected to help minimize crashes. The Plan ranks the sites based on observed crash information 

associated with rural and urban locations associated with RwD crashes at locations where barrier 

is not currently present. Appendix A expands on this information. Table 49 summarizes a 

proposed improvement plan for adding barrier at locations with run-off-road crashes where 

barrier is not currently present. 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

67

Table 48. Estimated RwD crash reductions due to adding barrier.

Facility Type

Estimated 

Length of 

Improvements 

(mi)

Construction 

Cost ($ 

Million)

Ratio of 

Type K

to RwD 

Crashes

Ratio of 

Type 

KABC

to RwD 

Crashes

After Treatment – RwD Crashes

Annual 

Targeted 

RwD 

Crash 

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

K Crash

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

KABC 

Crash 

Reduction

On State System

Rural 2-lane

Rural Interstate

Rural Subtotal: - - 

Urban Interstate

Urban Subtotal: - - 

Grand Total

(On and Off 

System): 

- - 

Notes:

• For adding barrier at locations with crashes into trees, poles, or other fixed objects, assumes improvement 

of 5% and 2% of identified system and local roadways.

• Cost estimates based on $700,000 per mile.

• CMF value of 0.84 used for adding barrier.

• Based on a crash level threshold of 2 crashes due to rollover/overturn within a 5-year period. 

IMPROVE BARRIER

Locations with steep roadside terrain or heavily wooded land are often shielded by roadside 

barrier. In many cases, barrier is constructed and remains in place for many years. In other 

cases, barrier is frequently impacted and the department of transportation is required to maintain 

the barrier. In addition, over time the design of an effective barrier may change. These design 

modifications could require barrier reconstruction or improvement. Recently the United States 

began a transition from NCHRP 350 barrier crash criteria from the 2016 AASHTO Manual for 

Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH). For this treatment to improve barrier, the improvements 

should be designed for the current criteria for the location.

Table 50 notes that improving barrier to current standards can be estimated to reduce run-offroad crashes by approximately 33 percent. 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

68

© TTI

Figure 15. Photograph. Improve barrier to current standards.

Table 49. CMF values for improving barrier to current standards.

Facility Type: Not specified Crash Severity: ABC, KABC

Crash Type: Run-off-road CMF: 0.67 to 0.68 (used 0.67) 

Additional Information:

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/detail.cfm?facid=41

and 

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/detail.cfm?facid=5551

Notes: 

• Studies included general sites (0.67) as well as rural multilane divided locations (0.68). 

This Plan utilized the slightly more conservative value of 0.68. The FHWA CMF 

Clearinghouse uses a five-star rating scale to represent CMF quality where a value of 

five represents the highest or more reliable rating. The CMF=0.67 study received a 

two-star rating, while the CMF=0.68 received a four-star rating.

• Due to the recent transition in the United States from NCHRP 350 barrier crash criteria 

to the requirements identified in the 2016 AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety 

Hardware (MASH), it is not clear how this shift will influence related CMFs. The cited 

CMF studies pre-dated the new 2016 MASH criteria. In all cases, any barrier 

improvements should be designed for current standards.

The Appendix B spreadsheet summarizes potential sites where barrier is present but continues to 

be a location with barrier-related crashes. The Plan ranks the sites based on observed crash 

information associated with rural and urban locations associated with RwD crashes at locations

where barrier is not currently present. Appendix A expands on this information. 

Table 51 summarizes a proposed improvement plan for improving barrier at locations with runoff-road crashes into existing barrier. 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

69

Table 50. Estimated RwD crash reductions due to improving barrier.

Facility Type

Estimated 

Length of 

Improvements 

(mi)

Construction 

Cost ($ 

Million)

Ratio of 

Type K

to RwD 

Crashes

Ratio of 

Type 

KABC

to RwD 

Crashes

After Treatment – RwD Crashes

Annual 

Targeted 

RwD 

Crash 

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

K Crash

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

KABC 

Crash 

Reduction

On State System

Rural Interstate

Rural Subtotal: - - 

Urban multilane

undivided

Urban Interstate

Urban Subtotal: - - 

Grand Total

(On and Off 

System): 

- - 

Notes:

• The Plan assumes improvement of 1% and 2% of identified system and local locations, respectively.

• Cost estimates based on $700,000 per mile.

• CMF value of 0.67 used for improving barrier.

• Based on a crash level threshold of 30 to 49 RwD crashes within a 5-year period. 

INSTALL MEDIAN BARRIER

The installation of a median barrier is a reasonable treatment at locations where the maintaining 

agency cannot practically flatten the median sideslope or relocate fixed objects outside of the 

median area. Table 52 notes that an approximate reduction of 65 percent for cross median 

crashes at locations with median barrier installations.
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

70

Table 51. CMF values for installing median barrier.

Facility Type: Divided Crash Severity: All

Crash Type: Cross median RwD CMF: 0.31 to 0.35 (varies) 

[Used 0.35]

Additional Information:

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/detail.cfm?facid=5445# 

and 

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/detail.cfm?facid=7091# 

Notes: 

• The primary median barrier target crash identified in previous studies focused on cross 

median crashes at divided highways. CMF values range from 0.31 for to 0.35. 

• The FHWA CMF Clearinghouse uses a five-star rating scale to represent CMF quality 

where a value of five represents the highest or most reliable rating. The median barrier 

CMF value of 0.31 received a five-star rating at the CMF Clearinghouse and the CMF 

value of 0.35 received a three-star designation. The plan uses the more conservative 

0.35 CMF value. 

The Appendix B spreadsheet summarizes potential sites where a median barrier is not currently 

present. Appendix A expands on this information. Table 53 summarizes a proposed 

improvement plan for installing median that would result in a reduction of approximately five to 

six crashes per year. 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

71

Table 52. Estimated RwD crash reduction due to installing median barrier. 

Facility Type

Estimated 

Length of 

Improvements 

(mi)

Construction 

Cost ($ 

Million)

Ratio of 

Type K

to RwD 

Crashes

Ratio of 

Type 

KABC

to RwD 

Crashes

After Treatment – RwD Crashes

Annual 

Targeted 

RwD 

Crash 

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

K Crash

Reduction

Annual 

Estimated 

KABC 

Crash 

Reduction

On State System

Urban multilane 

divided

Urban Interstate

Urban Subtotal: - - 

Grand Total

(On and Off 

System): 

- - 

Notes:

• For installing median barrier at locations that currently do not have existing barrier treatments, assumes 

improvement of 40% and 10% of identified system and local roadways. 

• Cost estimates based on $700,000 per mile.

• CMF value of 0.35 used for adding barrier.

• Based on a crash level where the observed number of crashes is greater than the number of expected 

crashes before installation of the median barrier. 

EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT CAMPAIGNS

A wide variety potential education and enforcement campaigns can help raise driver awareness 

and ultimately contribute to a reduction in RwD crashes. For the purposes of this Plan, each of 

the ABC Agency districts will receive $xx for a total allocation of $xx. 

MASH UPGRADE FOR ABC AGENCY BRIDGE RAIL RETROFIT

Due to the recent change in crash testing standards, several ABC Agency bridge rails require 

retrofit to MASH standards in the near future. This is an ongoing research project and so will be 

systematically applied to all applicable facilities. At this time, there is no current safety 

assessment method or estimated cost per site for this new treatment.
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

72

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

As the implementation of safety treatments occurs over time, assessing performance measures is 

an effective way to assess ongoing success with the Plan. This observation can then help ABC 

Agency refine future proven safety treatments. Two types of performance measures may be 

considered: 

1. Production performance measures that track the implementation of treatments can be

used to assess the quantity of efforts expended toward reaching future safety goals. 

2. Effectiveness performance measures that evaluate the effectiveness of the individual 

treatments can compare the estimated to actual safety metrics.

Table 54 provides an example format for evaluating production performance measures. The 

measures shown would be updated based on the individual treatment implementation activities. 

Table 55 provides one example template that could be used for tracking the effectiveness 

performance measures that are specifically targeted at reducing crashes. 

Table 53. Example production performance measures table.

Treatment Measure

Target Initiation 

Timeline

Annual 

Completion

Center Rumble Stripes/Strips TBD Actual results

Edgeline Rumble Stripes/Strips TBD Actual results

6” Wide Centerline Pavement Markings TBD Actual results

6” Wide Edgeline Pavement Markings TBD Actual results

Lighting Improvements TBD Actual results

High Friction Surface Treatment TBD Actual results

Static Curve Warning Sign (Standard) TBD Actual results

Enhanced Curve Warning System TBD Actual results

Utility Pole TBD Actual results

Remove or shield tree or fixed objects TBD Actual results

Culvert End Treatment and Ditch

Improvement

TBD Actual results

Flattening Median Sideslopes TBD Actual results

Add Barrier TBD Actual results

Improve Barrier TBD Actual results

Install Median Barrier with a mow strip TBD Actual results

TBD = To Be Determined
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

73

Table 54. Example effectiveness performance measures table.

Countermeasure

Year 

Improvements 

Implemented

Year 

Evaluation 

Plan 

Developed

Year 

Evaluation 

Completed

Estimated 

Crash 

Reduction

Actual 

Crash 

Reduction

Center Rumble 

Stripes/Strips

Edgeline Rumble 

Stripes/Strips

6” Wide Centerline 

Pavement Markings

6” Wide Edgeline 

Pavement Markings

Centerline Raised 

Pavement Markings

Edgeline Raised Pavement 

Markings

Lighting Improvements

High Friction Surface 

Treatment

Static Curve Warning Sign 

(Standard)

Enhanced Curve Warning 

System

Utility Pole

Remove or shield tree or 

fixed objects

Culvert End Treatment and 

Ditch Improvement

Shoulder Widening with 

Drainage Grading 

Improvements

Shoulder Widening without 

Drainage Grading 

Improvements

Flattening Median 

Sideslopes

Add Barrier

Improve Barrier

Install Median Barrier
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

74

SUMMARY

Due to recent economic improvements in the United States, the number of crashes has continued 

to increase. Over the last decade, the transportation profession has continued to learn more about 

the effectiveness of individual safety treatments and their associated effectiveness. With this 

added knowledge about how these countermeasures can contribute to crash reductions, this 

implementation Plan is intended to assist the ABC Agency with determining how to target 

valuable safety resources in an effort to further reduce the number and severity of RwD crashes. 

This Plan specifically focuses on lower cost treatments that the ABC Agency can deploy at 

numerous sites where RwD crashes are likely.

The focus of this plan is on identification of candidate countermeasures, deployment levels, and 

costs that collectively result in an estimated 19 to 20 lives saved with a corresponding 1090 

prevented RwD crashes (see table 9, table 10, table 11, and table 12). 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

75

REFERENCES

1. Satterfield, C., and A. Eigen. Federal Highway Administration Focus Area Data 

Definitions. Report No. FHWA-HRT-14-062, FHWA, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2014. 

2. Griffith, M. Memorandum Subject: Information: Revised Data Definitions for FHWA 

Safety Focus Areas. Memorandum to Safety Field, FHWA, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2014. 

3. National Highway Traffic Administration. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 

Analytical User’s Manual 1975-2016. Report No. DOT HS 812 447, NHTSA, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2017. 

4. Preston, H., R. Storm, J.D. Bennett, and B. Wemple. Systemic Safety Project Selection 

Tool. Report No. FHWA-SA-019, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Washington, D.C., 2013. 

5. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 

Highway Safety Manual. AASHTO, 2010.

6. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Selecting Safety Treatments (continued), 

2014. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/hrrr/manual/sec47.cfm 
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

76

APPENDIX A 

Appendix A is a separate PDF document that contains the ABC Agency crash data analysis for 

the period extending from 2012 to 2016. This Roadway Departure Implementation Plan is based 

on this analysis. Appendix A includes a summary of the ABC Agency RwD network screening

SPFs (for facilities where there was an adequate sample size for SPF development).
ABC AGENCY ROADWAY DEPARTURE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

77

APPENDIX B 

Appendix B includes three separate Microsoft Excel files. The file named 

Countermeasures_matrix.xls provides information used to develop the strategy matrix and the 

benefit-cost evaluation. The second and third spreadsheets (titled Candidate_Sites_State.xls and 

Candidate_Sites_Local.xls) provides information on individual highway locations for the various 

countermeasures. The individual sites are further identified by a ranking for application of a 

treatment based on the analysis summarized in the Appendix A document. 
FHWA-SA-22-063