Skip to contentUnited States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration FHWA Home
Federal Highway Administration Research and Technology: Coordinating, Developing, and Delivering Highway Transportation Innovations

ELCSI-PFS: Overview | Seven Phases of ELCSI-PFS | Technical Advisory Committee Members | Technical Advisory Committee Meetings | Publications | Treatment Databases | NCHRP Project 17-25: Crash Reduction Factors forTraffic Engineering and Its Improvements |
NCHRP Project 17-35: Evaluation of Safety Strategies at Signalized Intersections

 

 

Evaluations of Low Cost Safety Improvements Pooled Fund Study

 

Ranked Strategies

The tables below summarize the balloting results of the March 8th Low Cost Safety Improvements Pooled Funds Study meeting as delivered to the committee members. The purpose of the March 8th meeting was to develop a prioritized list of low–cost safety improvement strategies. Representatives from each the 23 State DOTS participating in the study and the FHWA, voted on 61 safety improvement strategies. The 61 strategies were broken down into three categories: Lane Departure Strategies (17), Unsignalized Intersections Strategies (37), and Aggressive Driver Strategies. Each state and the FHWA had one ballot in which they ranked their top ten strategies of interest from one to ten, with one being the highest. The top ranked strategies were then assigned points such that each representative’s top strategy received ten points, their second strategy received nine points, and so on. The points were then totaled and the strategies were ranked.

Table 1 displays the top 21 strategies based on the balloting at the meeting. Of the 21 strategies, 10 are Lane Departure Strategies, 9 are Unsignalized Intersection Strategies, and 1 is an Aggressive Driver Strategy. The strategy with the highest overall score was Install edgeline “profile marking,” edgeline rumble strips or modified shoulder rumble strips on section with narrow or no paved shoulders. It received a total score of 138, the highest number of ballots, and it received the most top priority votes with five states selected it as their top priority.

Table 1: Top 20 Strategies

Overall Rank

ID

Strategy

Score

Ballots

Average Score Per Ballot

1

LD7

Install edgeline "profile marking," edgeline rumble strips or modified shoulder rumble strips on section with narrow or no paved shoulders

138

18

7.7

2

LD11

Enhanced shoulder or in–lane delineation and marking for sharp curves

119

16

7.4

3

LD9

Provide enhanced pavement markings

67

12

5.6

4

LD5

Alternating passing lanes or four–lane sections at key locations to prevent HO crashes

61

10

6.1

5

U23

Flashing beacons at stop controlled intersections

60

9

6.7

6

LD3

Center two–way left–turn lanes for four– and two–lane roads

54

9

6.0

7

LD6

Median barriers for narrow–width medians on multilane roads to prevent HO crashes

54

9

6.0

8

U5

Bypass lanes on shoulders at T–intersections

51

10

5.1

9

LD17

Combination of lane width versus shoulders

48

7

6.9

10

U22

Pavement markings with supplementary messages, such as "stop ahead"

47

8

5.9

11

LD1

Install profiled thermoplastic strips for centerlines

44

7

6.3

12

LD4

Narrow "buffer median" on two–lane roadways

39

6

6.5

13

U18

Roadside markers or pavement markings for gap assistance

34

8

4.3

14

A1

Target (manual) enforcement for aggressive driving combined with educational and public information

34

8

4.3

15

U4

Offset left–turn lanes at intersections

33

8

4.1

16

U35

Stops signs with increased retroreflectivity

32

6

5.3

17

LD15

Automated warning signs when driver too fast for curve (particularly for trucks)

31

6

5.2

18

U6

Left turn acceleration lanes at divided highway intersections

28

5

5.6

19

U36

Intersection lighting intensity

28

7

4.0

20

LD2

Wider cross sections on two–lane roads

24

5

4.8

20

U7

Longer right–turn lanes at intersections

24

3

8.0

 

Table 2 displays the top two strategies in each of the three categories. In addition, where the strategy falls in the overall ranking of strategies is also shown. The ballots column shown in the table refers to the number of individual representatives that voted for that strategy. Therefore by dividing the total score by the number of ballots cast, the average score per ballot was calculated.

Table 2: Top Two Strategies in Each Category

Category

Overall Rank

Strategy

Total Score

Ballots

Average Score Per Ballot

Lane Departure Strategies

1

Install edgeline "profile marking," edgeline rumble strips or modified shoulder rumble strips on section with narrow or no paved shoulders (LD7)

138

18

7.7

2

Enhanced shoulder or in–lane delineation and marking for sharp curves (LD11)

119

16

7.4

Unsignalized Intersection Strategies

5

Flashing beacons at stop controlled intersections (U23)

60

9

6.7

8

Bypass lanes on shoulders at T–intersections (U5)

51

10

5.1

Aggressive Driver Strategies

14

Revised: Target (manual) enforcement for aggressive driving combined with educational and public information (A1)

34

8

4.3

26

Revised: Target (automated) enforcement for aggressive driving combined with educational and public information (A2)

18

4

4.5