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.

9. Familiar with FHWA Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and Pedestrians and its companion? 10. Participated in FHWA Older Driver Highway Design workshop(s)? 11. How knowledgeable are state level personnel of recommendations in the Handbook? 12. How knowledgeable at county or local level personnel? 13. Extent recommendations followed on scale of 1=None to 10=All 14. Three greatest barriers to implementing recommendations: State Actual/ perceiv- ed lack of impor- tance Lack of stan- dards in place Lack of state DOT educ./ training Lack of local educ./ training Lack of resour- ces Threat of liability Other* Arizona Yes Somewhat Somewhat 5 2 3 1 California Yes Yes Very Not very 6 X X X Colorado Yes Yes Somewhat Somewhat 9 2 3 1 Connecticut Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Somewhat Somewhat 9 3 2 1 Florida Yes Very Not very 8 1-local 3 2 Georgia Yes Yes Somewhat Not very 5 2 3 1 Iowa Yes Yes Very Somewhat 6 3 2 1 Maryland Yes Yes Somewhat Not very 8 3 1 2 Massachusetts Yes ? Somewhat Not very 4 1 3 2 Michigan Yes Yes Somewhat Unknown 2 3 2 1 Minnesota Yes Somewhat Not very 3 1 2 3 Yes Mississippi Yes ? Somewhat Not very 3 1 2 3 Missouri Yes Somewhat Not very 5 X X X Montana Yes Yes Somewhat Not very 4 2 3 1 New Jersey Yes Yes Somewhat Somewhat 4 1 2 3 New York Yes Yes Very Somewhat 8 1 2 North Dakota Yes Yes Somewhat Not very 5 1 3 2 Oklahoma Yes Yes Not very Not very 2 2 1 3 Oregon Yes Yes Somewhat Somewhat 4 1 Pennsylvania Yes Yes Somewhat Not very 3 1 3 2 Texas Yes Somewhat Not very 6 1 Virginia Yes No Somewhat Unknown 5 2 1 3 Washington Yes Yes Somewhat Somewhat 7 1 West Virginia Yes Yes Somewhat Somewhat 4 3 2 1 Other responses from states: Minnesota and Mississippi—Change is not easily accepted. New York—Length of time needed to change standards. Oklahoma—Conflicting priorities and standards. Or X = Barrier identified, but not prioritized by the respondent. egon—Credibility of document questionable, some suggestions unrealistic and unnecessary. 74 APPENDIX C State DOT Survey Results for Engineering for Older Road Users

75 Engineering Treatments to Better Accommodate Older Road Users: State a. Changes to street name signing b. Signing retroreflectivity or lighting requirements c. Use of upper- and lowercase letters on overhead signs AZ No No Yes CA Yes—Adopting 2003 MUTCD Yes—Adopting 2003 MUTCD Yes—Adopting 2003 MUTCD CO Yes Yes Yes—Follow MUTCD standards CT Yes—Towns permitted to add street name subplates to intersection warning signs Yes—LEDs used. Brighter sheeting used for STOP and WRONG WAY/DO NOT ENTER signing Yes—Already using, so no modification made specifically for older drivers FL Yes No Yes GA Yes Yes—Wet weather reflective tapes on Interstates Yes IA Yes Yes — MD Yes Yes Yes MA Yes No—Follow MUTCD guidance No—Follow MUTCD guidance MI (Just purchased Clearview font and are going to do test section) Yes MN No—Were already at larger size for overhead signs Yes—Went to ASTM-Type IX (VIP) sheeting No No MS Yes—Adopted 2003 MUTCD No No—Has always used (per MUTCD) MO Yes—Heights/sign sizes as large as practical for street mast arms to hold. Advanced signs not standard, but are optional for obscured locations Yes—Upgrading to high-intensity prismatic sheeting on majority of standard signs. In process of upgrading all work zone signs as well. New trusses being designed to allow retrofit. As headlight technology improves and less light reaches overhead signs, lighting may be made standard again Yes—Standard on signs that do not convey messages that require action These signs use all caps MT Yes—Changed from 4 in./3 in. to 6 in./4 in. for street name signs No NJ Yes—Mast arm mounted signs at traffic signals Yes—Type IX sheeting. Lighting of all signalized intersections No NY Yes—Changed from 4 in. to 6 in. on most conventional highways pending changes to NYS MUTCD Yes—Pending policy mandating use of Type IX sheeting for certain critical signs No ND Yes—Using larger letters on street name signs. Do not use advance street name signs No—All signs required to be retroreflective. All overhead signs are lighted No—Use uppercase letters only on the cardinal direction legend OK No No Yes OR Yes—Complying with MUTCD Yes—Complying with MUTCD Yes—Complying with MUTCD PA Increased to 6 in., but technically did not implement 8 in. for higher speed multilane roadways or 12 in. for overhead street name signs Yes—Standard type sheeting is now Class H Yes TX Yes—Modified for safety issues, not only for older drivers Yes—Modified for safety issues, not only for older drivers Yes—Modified for safety issues, not only for older drivers VA Yes—Policy implemented spring 2003 re: letter size and use of advance signs. 10+ year policy requiring letter sizes on standard street name signs be larger than required by MUTCD Yes—Have used high-intensity sheeting on all signs, as a minimum, since 1970s. Use prismatic sheeting on select categories of signs Yes—Standard practice WA Yes No No WV No Yes—Use of Diamond grade sheeting for legend on green and white expressway guide signing Yes—Have incorporated in signing specs for many years

76 Engineering Treatments to Better Accommodate Older Road Users: State d. Use of Clearview font on signs e. Use of protected-only operations at signalized intersections f. Use of all-red clearance intervals at signalized intersections AZ No Yes Yes CA Yes — — CO Yes Yes—Based on accident history, not older drivers Yes—Benefit to safety of the intersection, not based on older drivers CT No Yes—Already using for safety and capacity reasons at some intersections. No modification specifically for older drivers Yes—Already using for safety reasons. No modification specifically for older drivers FL No Yes Yes GA No Yes Yes IA — Yes Yes MD (Experimenting) Yes Yes Yes—C MA No No—Some in existence Yes—Standard practice MI (Just purchased, and are going to do a test section) No urrently being updated MN No No No MS No No—Use statewide, but have not modified specifically for older drivers No—Use statewide, but have not modified specifically for older drivers MO No No—Use based on traffic speed, volume, and sight distance No—All-red implemented as a standard. Yellow clearance is normally 4–5 s and all-red typically used if additional clearance time is required MT No No No NJ (Under consideration) No—Used in site-specific, high-density senior community areas No—NJDOT standard NY No No No ND (Are investigating its use) No—Use based on either capacity analysis or crash history No—Have been using for a long time OK Yes Yes Yes OR Unknown Yes—But moving from protected-only toward permissive-protected No—Some cities are using. Use occasionally, but not everywhere PA Yes—But only for signs using upper/lowercase legend Yes—SOL 470-98-28 in. Left-turn signal phasing in Yes—Pedes. Publ. 149 in. Traffic Signs, Design Handbook in. (for all drivers) TX Yes—Modified for safety issues, not only for older drivers Yes—Modified for safety issues, not only for older drivers Yes—Modified for safety issues, not only for older drivers VA No Yes—Have abandoned use of permitted or permissive/exclusive left-turn phasing at many locations. Still employed at some low-speed intersections Yes—Used extensively since mid 80s. Aware that aggressive motorists have become dependent on this as another opportunity to misuse the signal’s control of the intersection WA No Yes Yes WV No Yes—Particularly high-speed intersections Yes—Particularly high-speed intersections

77 Engineering Treatments to Better Accommodate Older Road Users: State g. Use of advanced warning signs (signal ahead, horizontal curve, etc.) h. Signal timing adjustments to accommodate older pedestrians’ slower walking speeds i. Letter size requirements for freeway entrance/exit signing AZ Yes Yes Yes CA Yes—Adopting 2003 MUTCD Yes—Adopting 2003 MUTCD, which allows walking speeds <3 ft/sec Yes—Adopting 2003 MUTCD CO Yes—Follow MUTCD standards Yes—Identified locations for elder populations Yes—Follow MUTCD standards CT Yes—Already using for safety reasons. No modification made specifically for older drivers Yes—Used on case-by-case basis for crossings used by elderly or physically impaired and at school crossings No FL Yes Yes Yes GA Yes Yes No — IA No—Use statewide, but have not modified specifically for older drivers No MD Yes Yes Yes MA No—Follow MUTCD guidance No—Follow MUTCD guidance No—Follow MUTCD guidance MI Yes—Have always done some of this Yes—When aware they are in the area, adjust the timing No MN No—Use statewide, but have not modified specifically for older drivers Yes—At site-specific locations No No MS No—Use statewide, but not modified specifically for older drivers No MO Yes—Signals/flashers utilized in special instances that require additional notification to a situation Yes—Allow a walking speed of 3.5 ft/sec to be used for calculating pedestrian signal timing if population of the particular area warrants its use Yes—Letter size recently increased for guide signs on expressway and freeway applications expressly for the aging driver MT No (Yes)—Considered in signal timing settings No NJ No Yes—In selected areas No NY Yes—Changed to text legend to symbols for certain warning signs, pending change to NYS MUTCD Yes Yes—Increase legend sizes (text and symbols) on grade-separated highway entranced, pending changes to NYS MUTCD ND No—Install where engineering study or MUTCD requires No—Adjust where required to accommodate either older or school aged pedestrians No—Follow MUTCD guidelines OK Yes—Use in accordance with MUTCD guidelines No—In areas where a larger population of older pedestrian are present, use slower walking speeds to determine timing Yes OR No Yes—Only in locations where there is a demonstrated high population of slower walkers No—Complying with MUTCD PA Yes—At discretion of districts Yes—Use to lower walking speeds for elderly pedestrian (Publ. 149) Yes TX Yes—Modified for safety issues, not only for older drivers Yes—Modified for safety issues, not only for older drivers Yes—Modified for safety issues, not only for older drivers VA Yes—Use liberally Yes—Where verified as needed No WA Yes No Yes WV Yes—Use of advanced warning— signal ahead in combination with amber beacon. Particularly on high speed facilities or at other locations with limited sight distances No—Use of count down pedestrian signals No

78 Engineering Treatments to Better Accommodate Older Road Users: State j. Lane striping or edgeline width k. Improvements to pavement marking contrast l. Use of raised pavement markings to supplement standard centerline markings m. Use of post-mounted delineation on curves as supplement to chevron signs AZ Yes No Yes Yes Yes CA (No)—Still discussing costs and are undecided at this time No—Questions about measurement criteria delayed introduction of this in the 2003 MUTCD and we are waiting for resolution by FHWA Yes CO Yes—Follow MUTCD standards Yes—Use for better visibility, not based on elderly drivers No—Due to snowy weather conditions Yes CT No—But expressway skip line width increased to 6 in. No No (Trial use only) FL Yes Yes Yes No GA No Yes Yes Yes IA (Under study) Yes Yes—Selected areas No—Use stand-alone chevrons and larger/ brighter chevrons at problem curves MD Yes Yes Yes Yes MA Yes—Incorporated 6 in. markings as standard on state highways No Yes—Current policy directive for some state highway locations Yes—Standard practice for some state highway locations MI Yes—First year with 6 in. edgelines (Currently evaluating) No Yes MN No No No No MS No—Gone to 6 in., but for safety and visibility of all motorists No No—Use has been MDOT policy for last 10–15 years No—Use statewide, but not modified specifically for older drivers MO Yes—Evaluating use of 6 in. strip on expressway and freeway lane line applications. Provide centerline stripe on all roads maintained. Have increased miles with edgeline stripe (Currently evaluating application of contrast markings on concrete where white pavement markings are most difficult to see) Yes—Have used on Interstate routes for many years. Now incorporating other non-Interstate 4-lane, divided routes into program No—Chevrons used as stand-alone devices, with exception of using an arrow panel on turns MT Yes—Changed 4 in. to 6 in. stripe in corridors with over involvement of older driver crashes No No NJ No—Under consideration No No—NJDOT standard on controlled access freeways No NY Yes—Increased width of lane lines and edgelines on freeways from 4 in. to 6 in. No No ND No—Use 4 in. edgelines and lane strips No No No No —Do not use because of concern with snow plowing No—Chevrons used as a supplement to delineators OK No—4 in. minimum (Currently conducting research) Yes—Along freeways and narrow bridge sections No OR No No Yes No PA Yes—Standard width for lane lines on multilane roads is 6 in.; 4 in. for other longitudinal lines except on case-by-case basis; Modified skid lines. Width of edgeline optional to districts Yes—Added black contrast markings Yes—At select locations on two-way roadways. Raised pavement markings are standard for lane lines on all freeways Yes

79 TX Yes—Modified for safety issues, not only for older drivers Yes—Modified for safety issues, not only for older drivers Yes—Modified for safety issues, not only for older drivers Yes—Modified for safety issues, not only for older drivers VA Yes—Selected locations, with number growing particularly in last 3–5 years Yes—Use contrast around markings or between skip lines at selected locations Yes—Use on most all Interstate and arterial routes, some primary and a few secondary routes No WA No No Yes Yes WV No No Yes—On freeways and other facilities with fog problems No