Utility Pole Safety and Hazard Evaluation Approaches (2020) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 18-24
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 18... ...
18 Summary of STA Survey Responses A total of 46 STAs responded to the utility pole survey distributed for this synthesis report, a 92% response rate. The survey was designed to document three different categories of interest related to utility pole safety: (1)
|
From page 19... ...
Summary of STA Survey Responses 19 with a program in place to review and correct pole siting in areas with high numbers of utility pole crashes. Four UOs were also interviewed, and some expressed interest in adopting a program to identify and modify sites that experience, or are at risk of, pole crashes.
|
From page 20... ...
20 Utility Pole Safety and Hazard Evaluation Approaches For the states that did provide the number of fatal and nonfatal utility pole crashes, the project team could not obtain a comparable number on nonfatal utility pole crashes from every state because (1) not all states include utility poles as a separate code on their crash report forms and (2)
|
From page 21... ...
Summary of STA Survey Responses 21 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total Percentage Alabama 31 25 12 30 22 120 2.70% Alaska 2 -- 1 3 3 9 0.20% Arizona 21 10 13 10 6 60 1.35% Arkansas 11 4 2 4 5 26 0.59% California 69 81 66 70 57 343 7.72% Colorado 3 4 10 1 2 20 0.45% Connecticut 14 19 14 13 14 74 1.67% Delaware 3 7 4 7 4 25 0.56% Florida 53 71 69 86 84 363 8.17% Georgia 30 25 32 31 28 146 3.29% Hawaii 8 4 4 7 2 25 0.56% Idaho 1 2 2 -- 2 7 0.16% Illinois 27 37 28 28 36 156 3.51% Indiana 25 34 34 28 27 148 3.33% Iowa 4 5 8 4 9 30 0.68% Kansas 6 2 10 5 12 35 0.79% Kentucky 12 22 17 17 13 81 1.82% Louisiana 24 16 21 21 22 104 2.34% Maine 6 7 9 4 12 38 0.86% Maryland 16 14 18 20 21 89 2.00% Massachusetts 28 23 32 19 23 125 2.81% Michigan 19 18 26 18 22 103 2.32% Minnesota 5 4 5 3 3 20 0.45% Mississippi 14 16 7 8 11 56 1.26% Missouri 13 7 11 8 13 52 1.17% Montana 1 -- 1 1 1 4 0.09% Nebraska 3 3 8 4 6 24 0.54% Nevada 9 6 7 2 2 26 0.59% New Hampshire 4 3 7 5 4 23 0.52% New Jersey 24 24 34 33 21 136 3.06% New Mexico 1 1 2 4 2 10 0.23% New York 40 40 39 28 28 175 3.94% North Carolina 28 28 30 23 38 147 3.31% North Dakota -- -- -- 1 0 1 0.02% Ohio 51 51 54 64 60 280 6.30% Oklahoma 8 8 13 11 6 46 1.04% Oregon 20 20 8 11 9 68 1.53% Pennsylvania 57 57 51 48 56 269 6.05% Rhode Island 6 6 5 4 4 25 0.56% South Carolina 20 20 14 18 19 91 2.05% South Dakota 1 1 2 1 0 5 0.11% Tennessee 37 37 27 34 42 177 3.98% Texas 78 78 74 88 69 387 8.71% Utah 4 4 4 1 4 17 0.38% Vermont 2 2 2 2 4 12 0.27% Virginia 14 14 22 11 19 80 1.80% Washington 18 18 18 14 19 87 1.96% West Virginia 4 4 8 8 11 35 0.79% Wisconsin 16 16 11 11 10 64 1.44% Wyoming -- -- -- -- 0 0 0.00% Total 891 898 896 872 887 4,444 100% Table 3. Number of STA fatal collisions involving utility poles and light poles for 2013–2017 (NHTSA 2018)
|
From page 22... ...
22 Utility Pole Safety and Hazard Evaluation Approaches of utility pole crashes. However, it was not clear from their responses whether these states (e.g., Alaska, Virginia)
|
From page 23... ...
Summary of STA Survey Responses 23 • Shoulder widening/paving (15 states) • Rumble strips (19 states)
|
From page 24... ...
24 Utility Pole Safety and Hazard Evaluation Approaches Funding Improvements in utility pole safety can be financed by various federal, state, local, and other funding sources. A total of 32 STAs indicated use of federal funds, and 17 of those states specifically cited HSIP funding.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.