Improving the Safety of Older Road Users (2005)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Roadways can play an important role in enhancing safety. It is only recently, however, that much attention has been given to the special needs and considerations of the oldest users of our nation’s roadways. As with vehicles, roadways have tra- ditionally been designed with the younger traveler in mind. However, the aging of the population has necessarily brought about an aging of the “design road user.” Improving roadways can be an expensive undertaking, but the good news is that improvements made in roadway geometrics, signing, pavement markings, traffic control devices, and other aspects of the driving environment will increase safety and ease of travel for all users and not just the older driver or pedestrian. If implemented with new con- struction or renovation, or only in selected high-crash or high-risk locations, they also need not be excessively expen- sive undertakings. This chapter reviews activities undertaken by the federal government and by state and local govern- ments to make roadways safer for older road users. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES FHWA has primary responsibility for the safety of the nation’s roadways. As noted in the chapter two literature review, FHWA initiated a high-priority older driver program in 1989. The results of this focused research activity provided input to a comprehensive set of recommendations and guidelines for accommodating an aging road user population. The Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and Pedestrians (Staplin et al. 2001a) updates the original handbook released in 1998. The Handbook does not establish new standards of practice, but rather is intended to supplement existing standards and guidelines contained in the AASHTO Green Book, MUTCD, and other commonly accepted guidance documents. A sepa- rate publication, Guidelines and Recommendations to Accom- modate Older Drivers and Pedestrians (Staplin et al. 2001b), is a shortened version of the full report containing only the recommendations and implementation guidelines. The updated Handbook contains more than 100 individ- ual recommendations in five broad program areas. A chapter featuring the new guidelines was prepared for inclusion in TRB Conference Proceedings 27, Transportation in an Aging Society: A Decade of Experience (Staplin 2004). It identifies countermeasures for addressing five specific situations posing difficulty for older road users. These five situations are night- time driving, intersections, freeways, pedestrian crossings, and 22 highway work zones. The identified countermeasures fall under the categories of static signs, changeable signing, traffic signals, pavement markings, other/raised delineation, geo- metric design, and traffic operations (see Table 4). FHWA has now moved into the implementation phase of its older driver program. Currently, it is funding demonstration projects in three states—Arizona, Massachusetts, and Wash- ington—to implement and evaluate selected elements of the Highway Design Handbook. The 3-year projects will provide information on the effectiveness of some of the recommended design elements in improving safety, comfort, ease of use, and operations for older road users, as well as for the general population. To facilitate adoption of the recommended guidelines and practices at the state and local levels, FHWA offers on request a one-day training workshop to transportation planners, engi- neers, and other practitioners through state DOTs and others. The workshop provides recommendations and guidelines to accommodate the special needs of older motorists in high- way design, and identifies modifications to the roadway sys- tem that can make it safer and easier for older drivers, as well as all drivers. Interactive methods are used to help partici- pants fully understand the changes that occur with aging, and case studies offer an opportunity to test out new knowledge. To schedule a workshop, states should contact the Safety and Design Technical Services Team at the FHWA Resource Center in Kansas City, Missouri. As a supplement to the workshops, FHWA recently pro- duced Travel Better, Travel Longer: A Pocket Guide to Improve Traffic Control and Mobility for Our Older Popu- lation (2003). The small, spiral-bound booklet identifies 35 design elements to maximize safety for older road users. For each element there is a brief statement of the problem being addressed (e.g., older drivers with decreased vision may need extra conspicuity on traffic control devices) and a description of the application. Reference to the appropriate sections of both the 2000 and 2003 editions of the MUTCD is provided for those seeking further detail. The specific design elements included in the Pocket Guide are listed here. Intersections and Interchanges • Signs – Signing for left turns on green lights – Sign sizes for offset left-turn lanes CHAPTER FOUR IMPROVING THE ROADWAY

23 – NO TURN ON RED signs – Letter size for post-mounted street name signs – Letter size for overhead street name signs – Redundant and advance street name signs – Advance notice of cross street – Street name signs for streets that change names – CROSS TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP sign – Advance traffic control signs – Intersection lane control signs – Educational plaques for pedestrians. • Pavement markings – Pavement markings for left-turn lanes – Raised pavement markings for curbs in medians and islands – Delineators at passive highway–rail grade crossings – Wrong-say arrows on ramps – Turning path pavement markings. • Signals – Backplate for signals – Leading pedestrian interval. • Curves – Raised pavement markings for centerlines of tight curves – HILL BLOCKS VIEW warning sign on vertical curves – Advance warning for signal obscured by curve. Temporary Traffic Control Zones • Lane closure/lane transition practices – Use of flashing arrow panel – Sign conspicuity. • Portable changeable message signs – Content of portable changeable message signs – Phases of portable changeable message signs – Timing of phases of portable changeable message signs. • Channelization and path guidance practices – Retroreflection for cones – Retroreflection for tubular markers – Retroreflection for vertical panels – Traffic control devices for temporary traffic barriers – Separating opposing traffic – Spacing for channelizing devices – Glare control devices for transition and crossover areas. • Temporary pavement markings – Retroreflective markers for pavement markings. FHWA also offers courses in designing facilities for pedes- trians and bicyclists. Of particular relevance for the older pop- ulation is “Designing Pedestrian Facilities for Accessibility,” a one-day course for transportation planners and engineers, community planners, and urban designers, as well as for pub- lic officials and interested citizens. The course provides infor- mation on the characteristics of pedestrians and the pedes- trian environment, current legal requirements, FHWA and U.S.DOT policies and funding opportunities, and accessi- ble pedestrian design. A related resource is the publication, Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, Part II: Best Practices Design Guide (Kirschbaum et al. 2001). Other pedestrian facility design resources are available on the FHWA-sponsored walkinginfo.org website. Included on this website are links to the Pedestrian Facilities Users Guide (Zegeer et al. 2001) developed to assist communities in creating pedestrian friendly environments for residents of all ages, as well as publications from the U.S. Access Board and the Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access report mentioned previously. In addition to these FHWA resources, several NHTSA projects have focused on making intersections safer for pedes- trians. Zone Guide for Pedestrian Safety (1998) summarizes a process to improve pedestrian safety by identifying small geographic areas where a large proportion of pedestrian crashes have occurred, studying these crashes, and then tar- geting countermeasures specifically to the occurring problems. OTHER NATIONAL INITIATIVES Other national initiatives have built on the FHWA Highway Design Handbook (Staplin et al. 2001a). As described in the literature review, many of the roadway and transportation engineering strategies contained in the AASHTO A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Older Drivers (Potts et al. Practical Countermeasure Elements Problem Situation Static Signs Changeable Signing Traffic Signals Pavement Markings Other/Raised Delineation Geometric Design Traffic Operations Nighttime driving √ √ √ Urban–suburban intersections √ √ √ √ √ √ Freeways √ √ √ √ √ Pedestrian crossings √ √ √ Highway work zones √ √ √ √ √ From Staplin, L., “Highway Enhancements to Improve Safety and Mobility of Older Road Users: Practical Applications,” In Conference Proceedings 27, Transportation in an Aging Society: A Decade of Experience, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2004. TABLE 4 PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS FOR OLDER ROAD USERS IN SELECTED PROBLEM SITUATIONS

24 2004) draw from the Handbook recommendations. Objec- tive 2 of the Guide is to “Improve the roadway and driving environment to better accommodate the special needs of older drivers.” The 11 strategies outlined under this objective appeared in chapter two of this report. For each of the 11 identified strategies, the AASHTO Guide contains a detailed description that includes the ratio- nale for the strategy, target audience, available information on expected effectiveness, keys to success, potential difficulties in implementing the strategy, appropriate measures of suc- cess, organizational and policy considerations, training and personnel needs, and legislative considerations. Information is also provided on the expected time frame for implementa- tion and the costs for each strategy. Perhaps most importantly, the Guide contains information on agencies or organiza- tions currently implementing the strategy and “real life” pho- tographs of how the strategy looks when implemented. TRIP, a nonprofit organization that researches, evaluates, and distributes economic and technical data on highway trans- portation issues, drew from its own analysis of the FHWA Handbook to develop a list of comprehensive safety improve- ments for improving older driver safety (Designing Road- ways . . . 2003). This list appears here. TRIP singled out the Florida DOT for the many roadway safety improvements that had been implemented in that state. • Signage and lighting – Clearer and less complex signage that is easier to follow – Larger lettering on signs and larger pavement markings – Better street lighting, particularly at intersections – Higher-performing retroreflective material in signs and pavement markings for better nighttime visibility. • Intersections – Bright, luminous lane markings and directional signals – Overhead indicators for turning lanes – Overhead street name signs – Adding or widening left-turn lanes. • Streets and highways – Wider lanes and shoulders to reduce the consequences of driving mistakes – Longer merge and existing lanes – Rumble strips to warn motorists when they are run- ning off roads – Curves that are not as sharp – Improvements to pedestrian features at intersections – Improved intersection design – Improved standards for acceptable stopping and reaction sight distances. STATE AND LOCAL INITIATIVES The TRIP report described efforts in several states to make roadways safer for older adults. Another very readable account of state activities in this area was the article, “Prepare Now for Your New Design Driver—A Senior,” in the February 2004 issue of Better Roads magazine (Consdorf 2004). States highlighted in the article include Florida, Iowa, Michigan, and Texas. More recently, organizers of the North American Confer- ence on Elderly Mobility, held in Detroit, Michigan, on Sep- tember 12–15, 2004, assimilated best practices from state and local transportation departments across the country to showcase in the conference’s Roadway Design sessions. The result was a multipart slideshow featuring contributions from 24 states in six subject areas: • Traffic signs, • Traffic signals, • Pavement markings, • Geometric design, • Work zones, and • Railroad grade crossings. The content of the presentations in the first four of these areas is summarized here. With respect to traffic signs, the focus was on larger signs and lettering, more conspicuous and easier to read signs, advance road name signs and in some cases supplemental signs, and improved diagrammatic signs placed over lanes. Similarly, the presentation on traffic signals emphasized placement of signal heads where motorists will see them; making signal heads more conspicuous, including use of multiple signal heads; and modifying signal operations to incorporate left-turn phases and all-red signal intervals. With respect to pavement markings, highlighted improve- ments included more conspicuous road markings, especially for nighttime and wet weather driving; use of edge lines to help guide the motorist; improved island delineation; and advance notice pavement markings. The featured road and intersection design improvements for older road users were those directed at facilitating turning movements, especially left turns (e.g., by realigning skewed intersections, convert- ing 4-lane roadways to 3-lane roadways, or installing round- abouts); improving sight distance; and adding shoulder and centerline rumble strips. • Traffic Signs – Bigger signs – Larger font sizes – Internally lit signs – Brighter sheeting – Overhead signs – Advance road name signs – Clearview font – Supplemental signs – Improved diagrammatic signs – Other. • Traffic Signals – Far-side signal placement – One signal face per lane, centered over lane

25 – Supplemental signal heads – 12-in. signal lens – Light-emitting diode signals – Back plates – Red T display (two red lights) – Left-turn phase – Prohibit permissive left turns at high-speed inter- sections – Flashing yellow arrow for permissive left turn – Left-turn yield—Blankout sign. • Pavement Markings – 6-in. (or wider) longitudinal lines – Contrast pavement markings – Raised pavement markers – Wet-night retroreflective tape – Profiled thermoplastic – Painted rumble strips – Large beads added to pavement markings – Edge lines in parking areas – Pavement marking extensions – Island delineation – Advance notice road markings – Staggered STOP line. • Road and Intersection Design – Realign skewed intersections – 4-lane to 3-lane conversions – Offset left-turn lanes – Offset right-turn lanes – Indirect left turns – Roundabouts – Offset left-turn lanes – Milled shoulder rumble strip – Centerline rumble strip – More forgiving crash attenuators. A shorter, combined version of the presentations given at the North American Conference on Elderly Mobility was pre- sented at a State Safety Engineers Peer Exchange held in Overland Park, Kansas, in October 2004. (For a copy of this presentation, contact the FHWA Michigan office). The Over- land Park event was sponsored by the AASHTO Standing Committee on Highway Traffic Safety. Sample roadway treat- ments showcased in the Overland Park presentation are shown in Figure 6. The following are highlights of other good state practices for improving roadways for older road users. California California has moved quickly to adopt the new recommen- dations contained in the 2003 MUTCD, many of which are especially beneficial to the older road user. By incorporating these guidelines into its own standard of practice, California is ahead of many other states in making its roadways more “elder friendly.” Florida As already noted, Florida is a recognized leader in making its roadways safer for older road users. This is important, because Florida leads the nation in the percentage of residents age 65 or older (18.1%, according to the 2000 U.S. Census estimates). The Florida Elder Road User Program was created in 1991 by Florida’s Secretary of Transportation. It drew on the recommendations contained in TRB’s Special Report 218 and from FHWA research to develop a plan for modifying the state’s highway transportation system to be safer for older road users. The plan that was developed included both short- and long-term improvements. Identified short-term improve- ments were reflective pavement markers, overhead street name signs, wider pavement markings, advance street name signs, improved pedestrian crossings, and improved work zone safety. Long-term improvements included increasing sign visibility, providing advance notice, and improving inter- section design and operation. The Elder Road User Program is clearly outlined in Florida’s Traffic Engineering Manual, and departmental personnel at both the state and local levels receive training in program implementation. The Better Roads article (Consdorf 2004) noted that Florida has already implemented many short-term improvements and is moving toward the more physical and costly long-term improvements. Given the high costs of improvements to the roadway, the director of Florida’s program recommends get- ting started right away and gradually phasing in improve- ments over time. Iowa When the Iowa Highway Safety Management System for- mulated its strategic plan for reducing the number and sever- ity of crashes on the state’s roadways, accommodating older drivers was one of the identified focus areas. There were four primary goals: • Reduce the number of older driver fatalities and severe injuries by addressing specific roadway features known to be most difficult for older drivers; • Use the older driver as the “design driver” when design- ing Iowa roadways; • Improve existing roadway features to accommodate Iowa’s aging drivers; and • Include alternate transportation systems in Iowa’s life- long safe mobility planning (Toolbox of Highway Safety Strategies 2002). Iowa has committed itself to reviewing and implementing the recommendations found in the FHWA Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and Pedestrians (Staplin 2001a) and to researching and applying best practices and technolo- gies for assisting older drivers. Some of the many improve- ments that can be found on Iowa roadways include larger

26 stop signs; wider paved shoulders and shoulder rumble strips; offset left- and right-turn lanes; more and longer rural turn lanes; larger, 8–10 in. letters on selected street name signs; advance street name signs; slower advisory speeds at express- way intersections; bigger and brighter advance curve and chevron signs; brighter and more durable pavement mark- ings; advance stop sign rumble strips; use of florescent yel- low sheathing on warning signs; and conversion of selected 4-lane undivided urban streets to 3-lane streets with center two-way left-turn lanes. In 2005, county and city engineers will receive training on the FHWA Highway Design Hand- book for Older Drivers and Pedestrians. The Iowa SMS staff has hosted statewide and regional forums to obtain broad public input to their planned activities, and has even invited older drivers to participate in their safety audit program to ensure that their roadways are elder friendly. FIGURE 6 Sample engineering best practices presented at North American Conference on Elderly Mobility, September 12–15, 2004, Detroit, Michigan. (a) Diagrammatic sign—Intersection location (Nebraska); (b) Large street name advance sign (Toledo, Ohio); (c) In-lane pavement markings (a “trailblazing” treatment being used in Ohio); (d) Larger regulatory signs (Mississippi); (e) Larger street name signs (6-in. Clearview font, with high-intensity sheeting, as used in Detroit); (f) Wider longitudinal lines (6 in. in many states, 8 in. in Nevada). (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

27 Michigan As with Iowa, Michigan has been a leader in implementing roadway improvements of special benefit to older drivers. Much of its effort has gone into evaluating the effectiveness of these improvements. For example, more than $27 million was spent upgrading intersections in the cities of Detroit and Grand Rapids. Changes have included larger, brighter stop- lights; bigger street name signs; brighter reflective markings; upgraded walk lights; and new left-turn lanes (Consdorf 2004). Other initiatives that have undergone evaluation in Michigan include brighter sign legends, enlarged fonts on guide signs, brighter warning signs, and increased edge line and gore pave- ment markings. By the end of 2004, the state will have com- pleted the widening of reflective pavement markings on all state highways from 4 to 6 in. Michigan is also phasing in 12-in. light-emitting diode signal heads and larger fonts and higher-visibility reflective sheeting for signs. Texas Texas has undertaken a number of initiatives to improve the roadway for its growing elderly population. In 1998, it initi- ated a program to upgrade all roadside highway signs on the state highway system. This program has resulted in increased uniformity with respect to lateral placement and minimum sign height above the roadway, enhanced motorist safety through the use of improved breakaway sign supports, and increased highway sign spacing for enhanced motorist under- standing and reaction to messages conveyed by the signs. The program is being continued as part of the Texas DOT’s regular installation and maintenance of its roadside highway signs. The department also qualified 203 projects for the Hazard Elimination Program over a 3-year period, including installation of traffic signals and safety lighting and con- struction of left-turn lanes and medians, both of which have been shown to be especially beneficial for older road users. It developed an improved striping and raised reflective pave- ment marker policy for use on all Texas highways. Finally, an ongoing project is evaluating sign legibility improvements for older drivers through the use of high-reflective sheeting with larger and easier-to-read sign legends. In addition (and on the “softer” side), the Texas DOT has awarded a grant to its Cooperative Extension agency to con- duct a statewide Safe Communities Management Program. One goal of the project is to help local Safe Community coali- tions with a tool to assess their community’s roadways with the older driver in mind. Information on the “Older Driver Tool Kit” can be found on the Texas Townsafety website. STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SURVEY RESULTS Information on current state practices with respect to road- way design and engineering to accommodate aging road users was collected as part of the survey sent to state DOTs. The survey questions focused primarily on familiarity with and implementation of the recommendations contained in the FHWA Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and Pedestrians and its companion Guidelines and Recommen- dations to Accommodate Older Drivers and Pedestrians (Staplin 2001b). The full survey is contained in Appendix A. Individual state responses to the survey questions pertaining to roadway engineering are summarized in Appendix C. Sur- vey responses were received from 24 states. All of the responding states indicated that they were famil- iar with the FHWA reports, and all but two (Mississippi and Virginia) indicated that they had participated in one or more FHWA-sponsored Older Driver Highway Design workshops. Three states—California, Iowa, and New York—reported that key personnel at the state level were “very knowledgeable” about the recommendations contained in the Highway Design Handbook; the vast majority of respondents (19; 79%) men- tioned that key personnel were only “somewhat” knowledge- able. The state DOT respondents were less likely to feel that key personnel at the county or local levels were familiar with the recommendations in the Handbook: only nine reported that their local counterparts were “somewhat knowledgeable” about the guide, whereas the largest share (13; 54%) reported that they were “not very knowledgeable.” The remaining two respondents indicated that they were uncertain about local familiarity with the Handbook recommendations. Survey respondents were also asked to rank, on a scale of 1 to 10, the extent to which the recommendations contained in the Older Driver Handbook were being followed by their department, with 1 representing none of the recommenda- tions being followed and 10 representing all of the recom- mendations being followed. The average reported ranking was 5.1. Six states (Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Maryland, and New York) graded themselves an 8 or higher. Eight more states rated themselves in the middle 5 to 7 range, whereas the remaining 10 states all graded themselves between 2 and 4 (see Figure 7). Several of the respondents noted, both in response to this question and elsewhere on the NC , OC AP ,S M , N M R O ,V W ,J N ,T M , A M K O ,I M , AV , D N , O M , A G ,Z A XT , AC AW Y N , D M , W I ,L F 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 None 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 All Self-Rating Scale N o. o f S ta te s FIGURE 7 States’ self-ratings on extent to which they follow recommendations in FHWA Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and Pedestrians (Staplin et al. 2001a).

survey, that they followed MUTCD guidelines, and that many of the guidelines in the Older Driver Handbook overlapped with those in the MUTCD and, in particular, the 2003 edition. Michigan also noted that it was “just getting started” in imple- menting the recommendations. Asked to identify what they felt to be the three greatest barriers to implementing the recommendations in the Older Driver Handbook, the response most often noted was a lack of resources for implementing the recommendations, which was cited by three-fourths of the survey respondents (see Table 5). The next two most frequently cited barriers were the actual or perceived lack of importance of the issue and inadequate education and training at the state DOT level. Both were cited by approximately half of the respondents. The remaining categories were all mentioned by less than one-third of the respondents. Results with respect to the sin- gle greatest barrier to implementing the Handbook recom- mendations followed a similar pattern. A final section of the survey asked whether state DOTs had modified their guidelines or standards with respect to 13 28 specific engineering treatments. Responses to this question are summarized in Table 6, with detailed responses appear- ing in Appendix C. States that reported that they were in the process of either implementing or evaluating specific changes are typically counted as “other” in the table. A cautionary note is in order regarding these results. The specific wording of the question was, “Please indicate whether your department has modified its guidelines or standards for each of the following engineering treatments to better accom- modate the needs and capabilities of older road users.” If a respondent replied “yes,” they were asked to describe the change(s) made. This wording clearly created confusion and a level of uncertainty about the results obtained. Some states responded “no” and noted that they followed the MUTCD, whereas others said “yes” and also noted follow- ing the MUTCD. The specific version of the MUTCD was not always specified. Ambiguity also arose because a time frame was not specified for making the described changes, so that a state with a long-term policy in place might respond either “yes” (because they do indeed have such a policy) or “no” (since this policy had not recently been made in con- States Citing in Top 3 States Citing No. 1 Barrier to Implementation n %a n %b Lack of resources for implementing Actual or perceived lack of importance of issue Lack of education/training at state DOT level Lack of education/training at local level Lack of adequate standards to accommodate changes Threat of liability for deviation from current practice Other 18 12 11 7 7 2 5 75 50 46 29 29 8 21 9 6 3 1 0 1 1 41 27 14 5 0 5 5 Source: Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and Pedestrians (Staplin et al. 2001a). aPercent of all states responding (n = 24). bPercent of all states responding (n = 22). Two states did not prioritize their choices. No. of States Reporting Modifying Standards or Guidelines Engineering Treatment Yes No Other/ Uncertain a. Changes to street name signing (larger letter height, advance signing, etc.) 18 4 2 b. Sign retroreflectivity and/or lighting requirements 16 8 0 c. Use of upper- and lowercase letters on overhead signs 14 9 1 d. Use of Clearview font on signs 5 13 6 e. Use of protected-only operations at signalized intersections 14 9 1 f. Use of all-red clearance intervals at signalized intersections 15 8 1 g. Use of advance warning signs (signal ahead, horizontal curve, etc.) 16 8 0 h. Signal timing adjustments to accommodate older pedestriansí slower walking speeds 17 7 0 i. Letter size requirements for freeway entrance/exit signing 11 12 1 j. Lane striping or edge line width 12 11 1 k. Improvements to pavement marking contrast 8 13 3 l. Use of raised pavement markings to supplement standard centerline markings 15 9 0 m Use of post-mounted delineation devices as supplement to chevron alignment signs on horizontal curves 10 13 1 TABLE 5 PERCEIVED BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTING RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THE FHWA HIGHWAY DESIGN HANDBOOK TABLE 6 STATE MODIFICATIONS TO ACCOMMODATE OLDER ROAD USERS

29 sideration of older drivers). Several respondents, and specif- ically Texas, noted that changes had been made, but not specifically for older drivers. With these limitations in mind, comments with respect to each item follow. Readers are encouraged to review the sum- mary tables in Appendix C for more specific information about a given state’s activities. • Street name signing—Eighteen of the 24 responding states noted changes in street name signing to benefit older road users. This number included Pennsylvania, which indicated an increase in letter height to 6 in., but not to larger heights for higher-speed, multilane road- ways or for overhead signs. Virginia reported that it had a long-term policy requirement for larger than required letter sizes on their street name signs. Michigan (coded under “other”) reported that it was testing use of the Clearview font. In Connecticut, towns are permitted to add street name subplates to their intersection warning signs. Several other states (all coded as “yes”) noted compliance with the MUTCD. • Signing retroreflectivity and lighting—Most states also reported changes in sign retroreflectivity or lighting requirements. Several noted adoption of high-intensity sheeting as standard (Virginia since the 1970s) and increased use of prismatic sheeting on some signs. Con- necticut noted the use of light-emitting diodes, and Georgia of wet weather reflective tapes on Interstates. Missouri noted that it was in the process of designing new trusses to allow for retrofitting, and also noted that overhead lighting may become standard again as head- light technology improves and less light reaches over- head signs. (Massachusetts responded “no” and noted following MUTCD guidance, whereas California and Oregon both responded “yes” and also comply with MUTCD). • Upper- and lowercase lettering on overhead signs— There was confusion with regard to the question about the use of upper- and lowercase letters on overhead signs, because the survey did not differentiate between free- way signs and street name signs (which was the intent). Thus, Massachusetts and Mississippi both responded “no,” while noting compliance with the MUTCD, and California, Colorado, and Oregon responded “yes,” while also noting MUTCD compliance. Overall, a majority of states do appear to be using the upper- and lowercase letters on at least some overhead signs. • Clearview font—Five states (California, Colorado, Okla- homa, Pennsylvania, and Texas) reported use of the Clearview font on signs. Four other states (Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, and North Dakota, all coded under “other”) reported experimenting with the font or otherwise investigating its use. • Protected-only intersection signals—A majority of the responding states reported use of protected-only oper- ations at signalized intersections. However, no infor- mation was sought on the frequency of use or the cir- cumstances governing such use. Missouri reported that use of protected-only operations was based on traffic speed, volume, and sight distance, and several states linked usage to crash history, independent of older driv- ers. In addition, Oregon noted that it was moving from protected-only toward permissive-protected signals, whereas Virginia noted that it had abandoned use of the permitted or permissive/exclusive left-turn phasing at many of its intersections. • All-red clearance intervals—In addition to the 15 states identified in Table 6 as using all-red clearance intervals at signalized intersections, the written comments to this question showed that 6 of the states that responded “no” also employ this treatment. In most cases, this was stan- dard practice in the state and not a change that had been implemented specifically for older road users. There- fore, this particular treatment was employed by the vast majority of the states responding to the survey. • Advance warning signs—Sixteen states reported the use of advance warning signs to better accommodate older road users. In addition, Minnesota and Missis- sippi reported its use, but with no specific modification for older drivers, and Massachusetts reported that it followed MUTCD guidance in this matter. In addition to the advance warning signs, Missouri and West Vir- ginia reported the use of flashers or beacons in special instances. • Signal timing adjustments—All but seven states also reported signal timing adjustments to accommodate older pedestrians’ slower walking speeds. In most instances this appears to be done on a case-by-case basis. Although North Dakota and Oklahoma both responded “no,” they did indicate doing this where needed to accommodate a larger population of older (or school-age) pedestrians. Massachusetts, which also responded “no,” noted that it followed MUTCD guidance. • Letter size on freeway signing—States were about equally split on whether they had increased letter size requirements for freeway entrance or exit signing, with 11 states responding that they had and 12 responding that they had not. Again, several states that responded “no” to this question indicated compliance with the MUTCD. • Lane striping or edge line width—States were also about equally split on their response to this question. Massa- chusetts, Michigan, Montana, New York, and Pennsyl- vania all reported use of 6-in. line markings on at least some roadways. Mississippi did as well, although it reported that it had made the change for the safety and visibility of all motorists and not for older drivers. Mis- souri indicated that it was evaluating the use of the 6-in. stripe on expressway and freeway lane line applica- tions, whereas California noted that it was discussing the costs of this change, but remains undecided. • Pavement marking contrast—Only eight states noted improvements to pavement marking contrast, with three

other states reporting that they were studying the issue. California explained that questions about measurement criteria had delayed the introduction of this item in the 2003 MUTCD, and that it was awaiting resolution by FHWA. • Raised pavement markings—A change in guidelines with respect to the use of raised pavement markings to supplement standard centerline markings was reported by 15 states. In addition, Mississippi (coded as “no”), indicated that use of raised pavement markings had been Mississippi DOT policy for the last 10 to 15 years. Use of such markings was typically designated for cer- tain types of roadways and locations. • Post-mounted delineation—Ten states noted changes in guidelines regarding use of post-mounted delineation devices as a supplement to chevron alignment signs on horizontal curves, and Mississippi (coded “no”) also noted their use statewide, but without specific regard to older drivers. Iowa and Missouri, also coded as “no,” reported using chevrons as stand-alone devices. • Three states noted “other” changes to accommodate older road users. Massachusetts reported the use of radar drones at construction work zones. Missouri replied that it was in the process of implementing the intermediate reference marker contained in the 2003 MUTCD (which will provide location information and also act as a road- side delineator), and also improving the design of its standard roadside delineators to be more durable and provide a larger retroreflective target. Virginia noted that it had been using 12-in traffic signal head sections exclusively since the mid- to late 1970s. SUMMARY Through its Highway Design Guidelines for Older Drivers and Pedestrians and associated materials and resources, FHWA has provided clear guidance to state and local trans- portation engineers on roadway improvements to accommo- date the aging driver population. Additional resources have been developed to provide guidance with respect to the pedes- trian environment, drawing support from American with Dis- abilities Act (ADA) requirements. Many states have begun 30 implementing these changes, and some have incorporated them into their standards of practice. California, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, and Texas have been especially active in this regard. However, their progress and that of other states is limited by inadequate funding and by the perceived lack of importance of the issue, especially when compared with other more visible highway safety challenges such as young driv- ers and alcohol. There is also a need for more education and training, both at the state and local levels. In the absence of adequate resources and training, there are large differences in how states are responding to the needs of their current, and projected, older road user populations. Useful Web Resources Transportation in an Aging Society: A Decade of Experi- ence, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2004 [Online]. Available: http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/conf/reports/cp_27.pdf. Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and Pedestri- ans (Staplin et al. 2001a) [Online]. Available: http:// www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01103/coverfront.htm. Designing Roadways to Accommodate the Increasingly Mobile Older Driver (2003) [Online]. Available: http:// www.tripnet.org/OlderDrivers2003Study.PDF. Better Roads (Consdorf 2004) [Online]. Available: http:// www.betterroads.com/articles/feb04a.htm. A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Older Drivers (Potts et al. 2004) and A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Pedestrians (Zegeer et al. 2004) [Online]. Avail- able: http://safety.transportation.org/ Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access (Kirschbaum et al. 2001) [Online]. Available: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ environment/sidewalk2/index.htm. Pedestrian Facilities Users Guide—Providing Safety and Mobility (Zegeer et al. 2001) [Online]. Available: http:// www.walkinginfo.org/pdf/peduserguide/peduserguide.pdf. Transit Cooperative Research Program reports [Online]. Available: http://trb.org/news/blurb_browse.asp?id=1. FHWA Regional Offices and Resource Centers [Online]. Available: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/field.html#fieldsites. Texas Community Older Driver Toolkit [Online]. Available: http://tx.townsafety.com/ACTSweb/ODT/overview.htm.