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 R1
NATIONAL NCHRP REPORT 641 COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Guidance for the Design and Application of Shoulder and Centerline Rumble Strips

OCR for page R1
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2009 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE* OFFICERS CHAIR: Adib K. Kanafani, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley VICE CHAIR: Michael R. Morris, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board MEMBERS J. Barry Barker, Executive Director, Transit Authority of River City, Louisville, KY Allen D. Biehler, Secretary, Pennsylvania DOT, Harrisburg Larry L. Brown, Sr., Executive Director, Mississippi DOT, Jackson Deborah H. Butler, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, VA William A.V. Clark, Professor, Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles David S. Ekern, Commissioner, Virginia DOT, Richmond Nicholas J. Garber, Henry L. Kinnier Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville Jeffrey W. Hamiel, Executive Director, Metropolitan Airports Commission, Minneapolis, MN Edward A. (Ned) Helme, President, Center for Clean Air Policy, Washington, DC Will Kempton, Director, California DOT, Sacramento Susan Martinovich, Director, Nevada DOT, Carson City Debra L. Miller, Secretary, Kansas DOT, Topeka Neil J. Pedersen, Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore Pete K. Rahn, Director, Missouri DOT, Jefferson City Sandra Rosenbloom, Professor of Planning, University of Arizona, Tucson Tracy L. Rosser, Vice President, Regional General Manager, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Mandeville, LA Rosa Clausell Rountree, CEO­General Manager, Transroute International Canada Services, Inc., Pitt Meadows, BC Steven T. Scalzo, Chief Operating Officer, Marine Resources Group, Seattle, WA Henry G. (Gerry) Schwartz, Jr., Chairman (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, MO C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin Linda S. Watson, CEO, LYNX­Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority, Orlando Steve Williams, Chairman and CEO, Maverick Transportation, Inc., Little Rock, AR EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Thad Allen (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, DC Peter H. Appel, Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S.DOT J. Randolph Babbitt, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.DOT Rebecca M. Brewster, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, GA George Bugliarello, President Emeritus and University Professor, Polytechnic Institute of New York University, Brooklyn; Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC James E. Caponiti, Acting Deputy Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S.DOT Cynthia Douglass, Acting Deputy Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S.DOT LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC Edward R. Hamberger, President and CEO, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC John C. Horsley, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC Rose A. McMurry, Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S.DOT Ronald Medford, Acting Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.DOT William W. Millar, President, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC Jeffrey F. Paniati, Acting Deputy Administrator and Executive Director, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.DOT Peter Rogoff, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S.DOT Joseph C. Szabo, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S.DOT Robert L. Van Antwerp (Lt. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC *Membership as of June 2009.

OCR for page R1
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM NCHRP REPORT 641 Guidance for the Design and Application of Shoulder and Centerline Rumble Strips D. J. Torbic J. M. Hutton C. D. Bokenkroger K. M. Bauer D. W. Harwood D. K. Gilmore J. M. Dunn J. J. Ronchetto MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE Kansas City, MO E. T. Donnell H. J. Sommer III P. Garvey PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY University Park, PA B. Persaud C. Lyon Toronto, Canada Subject Areas Safety and Human Performance Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2009 www.TRB.org

OCR for page R1
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP REPORT 641 RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective Project 17-32 approach to the solution of many problems facing highway ISSN 0077-5614 administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local ISBN 978-0-309-11799-9 interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually Library of Congress Control Number 2009935878 or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the © 2009 Transportation Research Board accelerating growth of highway transportation develops increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of COPYRIGHT PERMISSION cooperative research. Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining In recognition of these needs, the highway administrators of the written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials published or copyrighted material used herein. initiated in 1962 an objective national highway research program Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this employing modern scientific techniques. This program is supported on publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of the FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product, Association and it receives the full cooperation and support of the method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission Transportation. from CRP. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies was requested by the Association to administer the research program because of the Board's recognized objectivity and understanding of NOTICE modern research practices. The Board is uniquely suited for this purpose as it maintains an extensive committee structure from which The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; it the Governing Board of the National Research Council. Such approval reflects the possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, Governing Board's judgment that the program concerned is of national importance and state and local governmental agencies, universities, and industry; its appropriate with respect to both the purposes and resources of the National Research Council. relationship to the National Research Council is an insurance of The members of the technical committee selected to monitor this project and to review this objectivity; it maintains a full-time research correlation staff of report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and with due consideration for the specialists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. The opinions and conclusions expressed research directly to those who are in a position to use them. or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research, and, while they have been accepted as appropriate by the technical committee, they are not necessarily those of The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, the American by chief administrators of the highway and transportation departments Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, or the Federal Highway and by committees of AASHTO. Each year, specific areas of research Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. needs to be included in the program are proposed to the National Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical committee according Research Council and the Board by the American Association of State to procedures established and monitored by the Transportation Research Board Executive Committee and the Governing Board of the National Research Council. Highway and Transportation Officials. Research projects to fulfill these needs are defined by the Board, and qualified research agencies are The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, the Federal Highway Administration, the American Association of State Highway selected from those that have submitted proposals. Administration and and Transportation Officials, and the individual states participating in the National surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade Research Council and the Transportation Research Board. or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. The needs for highway research are many, and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program can make significant contributions to the solution of highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement rather than to substitute for or duplicate other highway research programs. Published reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at: http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP REPORT 641 Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Crawford F. Jencks, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Charles W. Niessner, Senior Program Officer Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications NCHRP PROJECT 17-32 PANEL Field of Traffic--Area of Safety Benjamin H. Cottrell, Jr., Virginia DOT (Chair) David Bachman, Pennsylvania DOT Mark O. Christensen, Horrocks Engineers, Pleasant Grove, UT Troy A. Jerman, Iowa DOT Frank C. Julian, Jr., FHWA Ali Kamyab, Sacramento, CA Wayne Kinder, Carson City, NV Erika B. Lindenberg, Connecticut DOT Susan G. Miller, Freeborn County, MN David K. Olson, Washington State DOT Gerald E. Willhelm, H.W. Lochner, Inc., Bellevue, WA Roya Amjadi, FHWA Liaison Richard Pain, TRB Liaison AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The report was prepared by Dr. Darren J. Torbic, Ms. Jessica M. Hutton, Ms. Courtney D. Bokenkroger, Ms. Karin M. Bauer, Mr. Douglas W. Harwood, Mr. David K. Gilmore, Ms. Joanna M. Dunn, and Mr. John J. Ronchetto of Midwest Research Institute (MRI); Dr. Eric T. Donnell, Dr. Henry J. Sommer III, and Mr. Philip Garvey of the Pennsylvania Transportation Institute (PTI) at the Pennsyl- vania State University; and consultants Dr. Bhagwant Persaud and Mr. Craig Lyon. The authors wish to thank the state departments of transportation of Minnesota, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Washington for their assistance in the safety evaluations. Finally, the authors acknowledge Dr. Bohdan Kulakowski, a member of the research team who passed away during the course of this research. His wisdom and friend- ship will be greatly missed.

OCR for page R1
FOREWORD By Charles W. Niessner Staff Officer Transportation Research Board This report provides guidance for the design and application of shoulder and centerline rumble strips as an effective crash reduction measure, while minimizing adverse effects for motorcyclists, bicyclists, and nearby residents. Using the results of previous studies and the research conducted under this project, safety effectiveness estimates were developed for shoulder rumble strips on rural freeways and rural two-lane roads and for centerline rum- ble strips on rural and urban two-lane roads. The report will be of particular interest to safety practitioners with responsibility for roadway design. Shoulder rumble strips have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing lane-departure crashes on rural freeways. Because they have proven to be cost-effective countermeasures, state departments of transportation and local agencies want to expand the use of rumble strips along the shoulders of divided and undivided highways and along the centerline of undivided highways including two-lane roadways. However, installing rumble strips to reduce run-off-the-road or centerline crossover crashes, with no consideration of impacts to other users, may lead to unintended outcomes. Some of the unresolved issues with installing either shoulder or centerline rumble strips include: · Minimum dimensions of the rumble strips necessary for effective vehicular warning with least potential for adverse effects; · Optimal placement, including minimum criteria for lane and shoulder widths; · Optimal longitudinal gaps in rumble strips to provide accessibility for bicyclists while maintaining the effectiveness in reducing lane departures; · Effectiveness and alternative designs for various speeds; · Physical design of rumble strips with respect to "rideability" for motorcyclists and bicy- clists; and · Noise produced by rumble strips on adjacent residents. The shoulders of the highway system are a diverse environment, with usage by bicyclists, pedestrians, mail carriers, school buses, and farm vehicles. There is great variability in shoul- der widths, materials, and pavement depths, making uniform application difficult. The optimal placement of the rumble strips in relation to the edgeline is also in question. Fur- ther, shoulders are used for lane shifts during construction and maintenance operations, requiring vehicles to drive over the rumble strips which may result in driver discomfort and potential operational problems.

OCR for page R1
Although information is limited, there is evidence that centerline rumble strips are an effective countermeasure for reducing centerline crossover collisions. However, centerline rumble strips raise concerns regarding pavement durability at centerline joints, their use in passing zones, and their impact on motorcyclists. Under NCHRP Project 17-32, "Guidance for the Design and Application of Shoulder and Centerline Rumble Strips," the research team led by Midwest Research Institute (MRI) investigated the (a) safety effectiveness of shoulder rumble strips on different types of roads, (b) optimal placement of shoulder rumble strips with respect to the edgeline, (c) optimal dimensions of shoulder rumble strips necessary for effective vehicular warning with least potential adverse effects, and (d) minimum level of stimuli necessary to alert a drowsy or inattentive driver. MRI also investigated the safety effectiveness of centerline rumble strips on different types of roads, for varying roadway geometry, and in combination with shoul- der rumble strips. The report includes estimates of the safety effectiveness of shoulder and centerline rum- ble strips, recommends the placement of shoulder rumble strips with respect to the edge- line, recommends sound level differences in the passenger compartment to alert drivers, and provides equations for determining rumble strip dimensions for a range of operating conditions.

OCR for page R1
CONTENTS 1 Summary 5 Section 1 Introduction 5 Background 5 Research Objective and Scope 6 Organization of This Report 7 Section 2 Magnitude and Nature of Highway Safety Concerns Related to Shoulder and Centerline Rumble Strips 7 SVROR Crashes 9 Head-On Crashes 10 Drowsy and Fatigued Driving 11 Crashes and Heavy Vehicles 12 Summary 13 Section 3 Purpose, Types, and Dimensions of Rumble Strips 13 Purpose of Rumble Strips 13 Types of Rumble Strips 14 Dimensions of Rumble Strips 16 Section 4 Review of Completed Shoulder and Centerline Rumble Strip Research 16 Safety Impacts of Shoulder Rumble Strips 16 Safety Impacts of Centerline Rumble Strips 18 Operational Impacts of Centerline Rumble Strips 19 Vehicle Dynamics Related to Vibration and Noise Stimuli 19 Effects of Rumble Strips on Specific Types of Highway Users 20 Pavement Performance Issues 21 Other Potential Concerns 23 Section 5 Existing Rumble Strip Practices and Policies 23 Typical Shoulder and Centerline Rumble Strip Practices in North America 32 Summary of Survey Responses 38 Summary of Key Findings From Existing Rumble Strip Practices and Policies 42 Section 6 Safety Effectiveness of Shoulder Rumble Strips 43 Scope of Safety Evaluation 43 Site Selection 47 Videolog Data Collection 50 Database Development 51 Descriptive Statistics 58 Analysis Approach

OCR for page R1
66 Analysis Results 91 Summary of Key Findings 92 Section 7 Safety Effectiveness of Centerline Rumble Strips 93 Scope of Safety Evaluation 93 Site Selection 95 Videolog Data Collection 96 Database Development 97 Descriptive Statistics 102 Analysis Approach 106 Analysis Results 113 Summary of Key Findings 114 Section 8 Stimuli Levels for Effective Rumble Strips 115 Overview 115 Psychophysics 116 FMCSA, FHWA, and NSF Interviews 116 Field Data 118 Summary of Key Findings 119 Section 9 Optimum Dimensions for Rumble Strips 120 Data Acquisition Methodology 120 Field Data Collection 124 Analysis Approach 124 Analysis Results 129 Application of the Noise Models 134 Summary of Key Findings 135 Section 10 Rumble Strip Application and Design Criteria 135 Implications on Shoulder Rumble Strip Policies 140 Implications on Centerline Rumble Strip Policies 143 Section 11 Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Research 143 Conclusions 144 Recommendations for Future Research 147 Section 12 References 151 Acronyms 152 Appendix A Detailed Literature Review 152 Appendix B Survey Questionnaire 152 Appendix C Detailed Summary of Survey Results 153 Appendix D Roadside Hazard Rating Category Descriptions 158 Appendix E SPF Results for TOT, FI, SVROR, and SVROR FI Crashes on Selected Roadways Without Shoulder Rumble Strips 161 Appendix F GLM Analysis Results for Safety Effectiveness of Shoulder Rumble Strips

OCR for page R1
166 Appendix G GLM Analysis Results for Effect of Shoulder Rumble Strip Offset and Recovery Area on Safety 170 Appendix H SPF Results for TOT, FI, and SSOD Crashes on Selected Roadways Without Centerline Rumble Strips

OCR for page R1
Appendix B Survey Questionnaire

OCR for page R1
National Cooperative Highway Research Program Project 17-32 "Guidance for the Design and Application of Shoulder and Centerline Rumble Strips" The following survey on shoulder and centerline rumble strips is being conducted as part of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), which is sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Your responses to the following questions concerning your agency's policies and practices regarding the design and application of shoulder and centerline rumble strips would be greatly appreciated. SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (Please return by September 23, 2005) SHOULDER RUMBLE STRIP POLICIES AND PRACTICES: 1. Does your agency have a written policy or set of guidelines concerning the installation/application of shoulder rumble strips? ............................................................................................................................. Yes No If YES, please attach a copy of your guidelines with your response or provide a web address. Web Address to Guidelines:__________________________________________________________________ If NO, does your agency use shoulder rumble strips? ............................................................ .... Yes No 2. On what types of roadways does your agency install shoulder rumble strips? (Select all that apply) Urban freeway mainline roadways Urban freeway on-ramps and off-ramps Urban multilane divided highways (nonfreeways) Urban multilane undivided highways (nonfreeways) Urban two-lane roads Rural freeway mainline roadways Rural freeway on-ramps and off-ramps Rural multilane divided highways (nonfreeways) Rural multilane undivided highways (nonfreeways) Rural two-lane roads Other: _____________________________________________________________ 3. On roadways with medians, does your agency install shoulder rumble strips on both the right (outside) and left (median) shoulder?............................................................................................................. Yes No If YES, does your policy differ between rumble strips installed on the right (outside) versus the left (median) shoulder? ............................................................................................................................... .... Yes No B-1

OCR for page R1
If your policy differs, what are the primary differences? ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ 4. Does your policy concerning shoulder rumble strips differ depending upon the type of shoulder surface? ... ....................................................................................................................................................... Yes No If YES, please elaborate: 5. How close to the edgeline does your agency install shoulder rumble strips? ___________________________ If the lateral placement from the edgeline is variable, what specific features are considered in determining the lateral placement of the shoulder rumble strips? ________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ 6. At what specific features or areas along the shoulder/roadway (e.g., ramps or catch basins) are shoulder rumble strips discontinued to avoid adverse consequences (e.g., pavement deterioration, noise, etc)? _________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ 7. What features directly affect installation requirements within your agency's shoulder rumble strip policy or guidelines? (Select all that apply) Roadway type Shoulder width Lateral clearance Traffic volume Bicycles Shoulder pavement type Shoulder pavement depth Area type (i.e., urban vs. rural) Speed limit Crash frequency/rate Other: _____________________________________________________________ Other: _____________________________________________________________ 8. Does your agency have a minimum shoulder width requirement for the installation of shoulder rumble strips? ..................................................................................................................................................... Yes No If YES, please elaborate: B-2

OCR for page R1
9. Does your agency have a minimum lateral clearance requirement for the installation of shoulder rumble strips? .................................................................................................................................................. ... Yes No If YES, please elaborate: _________________________________________________________________________________________ 10. Does your agency have a minimum traffic volume requirement for the installation of shoulder rumble strips? .................................................................................................................................................. ... Yes No If YES, please elaborate: _________________________________________________________________________________________ 11. Does your agency have a minimum pavement depth requirement for the installation of shoulder rumble strips? .................................................................................................................................................. ... Yes No If YES, please elaborate: _________________________________________________________________________________________ 12. Does your agency have a minimum speed limit requirement for the installation of shoulder rumble strips? .................................................................................................................................................. ... Yes No If YES, please elaborate: _________________________________________________________________________________________ 13. Does your agency have a minimum crash frequency/rate requirement for the installation of shoulder rumble strips? ....................................................................................................................................... Yes No If YES, please elaborate: _________________________________________________________________________________________ 14. Does your agency's policy change depending upon whether shoulder rumble strips will be installed along a designated bicycle route? ........................................................................................................ Yes No If YES, please elaborate: _________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ 15. Does your agency's policy provide a gap in the shoulder rumble strip pattern to allow bicyclists to maneuver from the travel lane to the shoulder and back without traversing the rumble strips? .............. Yes No B-3

OCR for page R1
If YES, please describe the gap pattern and whether it varies with the type of facility: _________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ 16. Most agencies that use shoulder rumble strips install them continuously along extended sections of roadway. Does your agency, in some cases, install shoulder rumble strips along specific shorter sections of roadway (e.g., specific horizontal curves)? ..................................................................................................................................................... Yes No If YES, please elaborate: _________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ 17. Has your agency installed milled, rolled, or formed rumble strips directly on the edgeline of the traveled way? ..................................................................................................................................................... Yes No 18. Has your agency installed textured pavement edgeline markings (e.g., thermoplastic) to stimulate the driver with audible or tactile sensations (i.e., rumble stripes)? .................................................................................................................................................. ... Yes No If YES, please elaborate: _________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ 19. Has your agency's policy/practice of installing shoulder rumble strips changed recently (i.e., within the last 3 to 5 years)? .............................................................................................................................. Yes No If YES, how has it changed? _________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ If YES, why was it changed? _________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ 20. Do you anticipate that your agency's policy/practice of installing shoulder rumble strips will change in the next year or so (i.e., are changes planned or are modifications currently being drafted)? ...... Yes No If YES, please explain what type of modifications will be made or are anticipated? _________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ If YES, what is the basis or justification for the planned changes? _________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ B-4

OCR for page R1
CENTERLINE RUMBLE STRIP POLICIES AND PRACTICES: 21. Does your agency have a written policy or set of guidelines for the installation/application of centerline rumble strips on undivided roads? ........................................................................................... Yes No If YES, please attach a copy of your guidelines with your response or provide a web address. Web Address to Guidelines:________________________________________________________________ If NO, does your agency use centerline rumble strips? ........................................................... Yes No 22. Concerning the lateral placement of centerline rumble strips, check the type(s) of applications that have been installed by your agency? Centerline rumble strips within pavement markings Centerline rumble strips extend into travel lane Centerline rumble strips on either side of pavement markings 23. On what type of roadways does your agency install centerline rumble strips? (Select all that apply) Urban multilane undivided highways (nonfreeways) Urban two-lane roads Rural multilane undivided highways (nonfreeways) Rural two-lane roads Other: _____________________________________________________________ 24. Does your agency have a minimum lane width requirement for the installation of centerline rumble strips? .................................................................................................................................................. Yes No If YES, please elaborate: _________________________________________________________________________________________ B-5

OCR for page R1
25. Does your agency have a minimum traffic volume guideline for the installation of centerline rumble strips? .................................................................................................................................................. Yes No If YES, please elaborate: _________________________________________________________________________________________ 26. Does your agency have a minimum speed limit guideline for the installation of centerline rumble strips? .................................................................................................................................................. Yes No If YES, please elaborate: _________________________________________________________________________________________ 27. Does your agency have a minimum crash frequency/rate guideline for the installation of centerline rumble strips? .................................................................................................................................................. Yes No If YES, please elaborate: _________________________________________________________________________________________ 28. Has your agency installed both centerline rumble strips and shoulder rumble strips along the same roadway? .................................................................................................................................................. Yes No If YES, approximately how many miles of this dual application have been installed? GENERAL QUESTIONS 29. Has your agency installed midlane rumble strips (i.e., rumble strips installed in the center of the travel lane)? .................................................................................................................................................. Yes No If NO, what is the possibility that your agency would consider installing midlane rumble strips on an experimental basis? Highly unlikely Willing to consider High likelihood 30. Does your agency have statewide or district level data in electronic format that contains information concerning the application of shoulder and/or centerline rumble strips (e.g., implementation dates, design information, etc.)? .................................................................................................................... Yes No 31. Does your agency install rumble strips... Only as part of larger projects? As a stand-alone safety improvement? Both situations 32. Does your agency have data on bicycle only crashes or non-crash injuries related to rumble strip encounters? .................................................................................................................................................. Yes No B-6

OCR for page R1
33. We are currently setting priorities for the research in NCHRP Project 17-32. Your opinion would be appreciated. Please rank the priority for research to address gaps in knowledge associated with SHOULDER rumble strips? In column two of the table, please rank each research need on a 1 (Low Priority) to 5 (High Priority) scale. Please identify additional research needs in the empty rows at the bottom of the table. In column three, please check if your agency has already performed related research. In column four, please check if your agency might be willing to participate in future research or has available data to address the issue. NOTE: When assigning the priority, please do not assign high priority (i.e., 5) to more than three topics. Check if your agency might be Check if willing to your agency participate in has already future research or performed has available data related to address the Future Research Needs Related to Shoulder Rumble Strips Priority* research issue Determine optimum dimensions (e.g., length, width, depth, spacing) Determine minimum level of stimuli (i.e., sound or vibration) necessary to alert a drowsy or inattentive driver Determine optimum lateral placement from the edgeline Determine minimum shoulder width Better quantify safety effectiveness: · Along different types of roads (e.g. freeways, 2-lane highways, multilane highways, etc.) · Along roadways with varying speeds or ADT · Under varying conditions (e.g., wet vs. dry, light vs. dark, etc.) · Along varying roadway geometry · Along varying roadside conditions (e.g., 10 ft clear zone vs. 20 ft clear zone vs. 30 ft clear zone) · Differences in rumble strips installed along the right (outside) vs. left (median) shoulder Determine optimum longitudinal gaps in rumble strips to provide accessibility for bicyclists Improve physical design of rumble strips with respect to "rideability" for bicyclists and motorcyclists Determine impact of noise produced by rumble strips on adjacent residents Determine effect on pavement performance Determine effect on maintenance activities Others (please specify): *Priority Ranking Scale: 1 ­ Low priority 2 ­ Low-medium priority 3 ­ Medium priority4 ­ Medium-high priority 5 ­ High priority B-7

OCR for page R1
34. Please rank the priority for research to address gaps in knowledge associated with CENTERLINE rumble strips? In column two of the table, please rank each research need on a 1 (Low Priority) to 5 (High Priority) scale. Please identify additional research needs in the empty rows at the bottom of the table. In column three, please check if your agency has already performed related research. In column four, please check if your agency might be willing to participate in future research or has available data to address the issue. NOTE: When assigning the priority, please do not assign high priority (i.e., 5) to more than three topics. Check if Check if your agency your agency might be willing to has already participate in future performed research or has related available data to Future Research Needs Related to Centerline Rumble Strips Priority* research address the issue Determine optimum dimensions (e.g., length, width, depth, spacing) Determine optimum placement with respect to the centerline pavement markings (related to Question 22) Operational impacts on vehicular traffic (i.e., vehicle speeds and lateral placement) Assess advantages/disadvantages of installing centerline rumble strips in passing zones Better quantify safety effectiveness: · Along different types of roads (e.g. 2-lane highways, multilane highways, etc.) · Along roadways with varying speeds and ADTs · Under varying conditions (e.g., wet vs. dry, light vs. dark, etc.) · Along varying roadway geometry · Installed in combination with shoulder rumble strips (related to Question 28) Improve physical design of rumble strips with respect to "rideability" for bicyclists and motorcyclists Determine impact of noise produced by rumble strips on adjacent residents Determine effect on visibility of pavement markings Determine effect on pavement performance Determine effect on maintenance activities Others (please specify): *Priority Ranking Scale: 1 ­ Low priority 2 ­ Low-medium priority 3 ­ Medium priority4 ­ Medium-high priority 5 ­ High priority B-8

OCR for page R1
35. May we have the name of an engineer in your agency that we may contact to clarify any aspect of your response or to obtain additional information? Contact: Title: Agency: Address: Telephone #: Fax #: e-mail address: Please return the completed survey by September 23, 2005, to: Darren J. Torbic, Ph.D. Senior Traffic Engineer Midwest Research Institute 2362 Raven Hollow Rd State College, PA 16801 814-237-8831 dtorbic@mriresearch.org B-9

OCR for page R1
Appendix C Detailed Summary of Survey Results