Utility Pole Safety and Hazard Evaluation Approaches (2020) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 93-106
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 93... ...
B-1 A P P E N D I X B Summary of Survey Results The synthesis survey was designed to gather the best information regarding current STA practices on addressing utility pole safety. The team intentionally chose to include nine questions (nine plus contact information)
|
From page 94... ...
B-2 Utility Pole Safety and Hazard Evaluation Approaches was targeted for survey questions 2, 3, and 10, which dealt with utility pole placement guidelines. The data analyst was targeted for questions 4 and 5, which were questions asking about crash information within the STA.
|
From page 95... ...
Summary of Survey Results B-3 Survey Questions and Responses The STA survey questions are given below, along with individual responses to each question.
|
From page 96... ...
B-4 Utility Pole Safety and Hazard Evaluation Approaches • The main reason is that the ROW is not wide enough to allow for poles to be placed within the ROW but out of the clear zone. Or utility placements pre-date requirement to adhere to clear zone.
|
From page 97... ...
Summary of Survey Results B-5 • Poles [could also receive an exception if] replaced in response to a highway construction or maintenance project.
|
From page 98... ...
B-6 Utility Pole Safety and Hazard Evaluation Approaches • Waivers may be granted unless they cause "substantial detriment to the safety and operation of the highway and without deviating from the intent and purpose of this chapter" (see NJ Utility Guidelines)
|
From page 99... ...
Summary of Survey Results B-7 (1) not all states have utility pole as a separate code on their crash report form; and/or (2)
|
From page 100... ...
B-8 Utility Pole Safety and Hazard Evaluation Approaches VEHICLE LEVEL DATA*
|
From page 101... ...
Summary of Survey Results B-9 A few other states indicated that they have computer capabilities (e.g., mapping tools, computer sorting programs) that would allow for conducting searches of sites having high utility pole crash experiences.
|
From page 102... ...
B-10 Utility Pole Safety and Hazard Evaluation Approaches • Yes. NJ DOT keeps track of that; if more than 3 hits, it must be mitigated.
|
From page 103... ...
Summary of Survey Results B-11 8. Please indicate which of the following countermeasures are currently used by your Department to improve motorist safety, regarding utility poles within the highway right-of-way and have been determined to be unmovable.
|
From page 104... ...
B-12 Utility Pole Safety and Hazard Evaluation Approaches LIGHT POLES FOR YEARS 2013-2017 (FROM FARS DATABASE) 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Total Percentage Alabama 22 30 12 25 31 120 2.70% Alaska 3 3 1 2 9 0.20% Arizona 6 10 13 10 21 60 1.35% Arkansas 5 4 2 4 11 26 0.59% California 57 70 66 81 69 343 7.72% Colorado 2 1 10 4 3 20 0.45% Connecticut 14 13 14 19 14 74 1.67% Delaware 4 7 4 7 3 25 0.56% Florida 84 86 69 71 53 363 8.17% Georgia 28 31 32 25 30 146 3.29% Hawaii 2 7 4 4 8 25 0.56% Idaho 2 2 2 1 7 0.16% Illinois 36 28 28 37 27 156 3.51% Indiana 27 28 34 34 25 148 3.33% Iowa 9 4 8 5 4 30 0.68% Kansas 12 5 10 2 6 35 0.79% Kentucky 13 17 17 22 12 81 1.82% Louisiana 22 21 21 16 24 104 2.34% Maine 12 4 9 7 6 38 0.86% Maryland 21 20 18 14 16 89 2.00% Massachusetts 23 19 32 23 28 125 2.81% Michigan 22 18 26 18 19 103 2.32% Minnesota 3 3 5 4 5 20 0.45% Mississippi 11 8 7 16 14 56 1.26% Missouri 13 8 11 7 13 52 1.17% Montana 1 1 1 1 4 0.09% Nebraska 6 4 8 3 3 24 0.54% Nevada 2 2 7 6 9 26 0.59% New Hampshire 4 5 7 3 4 23 0.52% New Jersey 21 33 34 24 24 136 3.06% New Mexico 2 4 2 1 1 10 0.23% New York 28 28 39 40 40 175 3.94% North Carolina 38 23 30 28 28 147 3.31% North Dakota 0 1 1 0.02% Ohio 60 64 54 51 51 280 6.30% Oklahoma 6 11 13 8 8 46 1.04% Oregon 9 11 8 20 20 68 1.53% Pennsylvania 56 48 51 57 57 269 6.05% TABLE B1: NUMBER OF FATAL COLLISIONS INVOLVING UTILITY POLES AND
|
From page 105... ...
Summary of Survey Results B-13 Rhode Island 4 4 5 6 6 25 0.56% South Carolina 19 18 14 20 20 91 2.05% South Dakota 0 1 2 1 1 5 0.11% Tennessee 42 34 27 37 37 177 3.98% Texas 69 88 74 78 78 387 8.71% Utah 4 1 4 4 4 17 0.38% Vermont 4 2 2 2 2 12 0.27% Virginia 19 11 22 14 14 80 1.80% Washington 19 14 18 18 18 87 1.96% West Virginia 11 8 8 4 4 35 0.79% Wisconsin 10 11 11 16 16 64 1.44% Wyoming 0 0 0.00% Total 887 872 896 898 891 4,444 100%
|
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.