Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 43


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 42
42 SECTION V Roadway Junctions Planning Programs Related perspectives, and the perspective chosen determines the to Reducing Crashes at Signalized choice and targeting of treatments. Some states chose to try and Unsignalized Intersections to expand their current "high-crash location (HCL)" pro- gram to include more locations to meet their overall goal. This section of the guide provides the details of the four Others chose to orient their planning methods to the identi- levels of treatment choice and targeting procedures described fication and treatment of "systems" of intersections, not just above in the Stage 3 discussion in Section III, but it is oriented those locations that fell under the HCL program. Indeed, to those issues/emphasis areas that are specifically related to at- guidance provided in each of the guides, in companion train- grade intersections angle crashes, turning crashes, sideswipe ing courses, and in the FHWA Sample Plan for intersections crashes, rear-end crashes, head-on crashes and run-off-road (25) is that system-based programs will need to be included. crashes. In most instances, a given procedure will follow the If the jurisdiction is really attempting to reach a goal which same basic steps, regardless of the crash type being addressed. represents a significant change from the current situation a Where the procedure differs between crash types, this will stretch goal it is very unlikely that expansion of the HCL be noted. In addition, the data needed for the different program will suffice. While such an expansion is clearly a intersection-oriented crash types will differ and will be spec- component of a stretch-goal plan, large-scale treatment of ified. The user is strongly urged to carefully review the ma- systems and corridors will also likely be necessary. terial in each of the pertinent guides before beginning this Indeed, a jurisdiction can use the following procedure to planning process. These intersection-oriented guides are determine approximately how much the existing HCL found within NCHRP Report 500: Guidance for Implemen- program will have to be expanded, which will provide some tation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan. The guidance on whether system programs should also be specific volumes pertinent to this section are: considered. Volume 5: A Guide for Addressing Unsignalized Intersection 1. Examine the most recent listing of HCL projects that were Collisions (5) chosen for treatment in your jurisdiction and identify Volume 12: A Guide for Reducing Collisions at Signalized In- those that were related to intersection crashes. tersections (12) 2. Add the numbers of before-treatment crashes, injuries, and fatalities from each intersection and divide by the A link to these downloadable guides can be found at http:// number of years of before data to produce a total number safety.transportation.org/guides.aspx. of potentially treatable intersection crashes and crash injuries per year. 3. Multiply these totals by 20 percent to get the number of Possible Program Types Spot versus intersection crashes, injuries and fatalities that are System Programs expected to be reduced per year by your current program. Before moving to the specific treatment choice/targeting (This assumes an average Crash Reduction Factor of procedures for these emphasis areas, it is noted that states 20 percent for all intersection strategies. This is probably who were early participants in the AASHTO safety planning too high, but in the ballpark of reality, and good enough process for intersection programs started from two different for this exercise.)