Interstate Safety Improvement Program

Transcription

1 Transportation Kentucky Transportation Center Research Report University of Kentucky Year 1979 Interstate Safety Improvement Program Jerry G. Pigman Kenneth R. Agent Charles V. Zegeer Kentucky Department of Transportation, Kentucky Department of Transportation, Kentucky Department of Transportation This paper is posted at UKnowledge. researchreports/1041

2 CALVIN G. GRAYSON SECRETARY COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Division of Research 533 South Limestone Lexington, KY March 29, 1979 JULIAN M. CARROLL GOVERNOR H-3-84 MEMO TO: G. F. Kemper State Highway Engineer SUBJECT: Research Report 517; Interstate Safety Improvement Program; KYP-77-84; HPR-PL-1(14), Part III-B. Report 495 (Development of Procedures for Preparation of the Interstate Safety Improvement Program11), issued la t February, presented bases and criteria for a safety improvement program directed specifically to inte1 state routes. Federal directives and guidelines were given in Section (Highway Safety Improvement Pr gram) of Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual, July 3, It mandated that: Each State shall develop and implement on a continuous basis a highway safety impr ovement program... The Division of Research received this assignment on January 13, 1977; a proposal was submitted February 14; the proposal was reviewed by the advisory committee on February 17 and was forwarded to FHWA on March I. An analysis of accidents on twelve bridges on I 75 (north) was submitted on April II. A preliminary program listing was advanced May 26, 1978, in conjunction with committee review of Report 495. The committee recommended th at the projects be included' in the Interstate Cost Estimate for Those improvements totaled more th an $22 million. Report 517 further advances the phase of development pertaining to interstate routes and includes plans and guides for continuation, updating, and extension to all highways. Extension to include the toll roads has begun already; an inventory will be necessary. Undoubtedly, the most formidable deterrent to extension into other systems will be th e vast inventory that will be prerequisite. The analyses of accidents and incidents here shou.id not be considered an exhaustive evaluation of the geometric design of the highways nor of many affecting factors which may have been analyzed and reported in greater detail elsewhere. Factors not addressed specifically are: lighting, out-of-sight off-ramps, fog, merging sight distance at on-ramps, snow-melt and glaze ice on pavements, contour-grading, and left-side guardrails. Ramp-mete-ring was suggested as a recourse or aid to merging into a mainstream. gd Enclosure cc's: Research Committee.,-:'. Respectfully s mitted/ (. -. v. ( /? Jas. H. Havens Director of Research 7?'--

3

4 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Interstate Safety Improvement Program March Performing Organization Code 7. Author! s) J. G. Pigman, K. R. Agent, C. V. Zegeer Performing Organization Report No, 9. Performing Orgoni zotion Nome and Address Division of Research Kentucky Department of Transportation 533 South Limestone Lexington, Kentucky Sponsoring Agency Nome and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 11. Contract or Grant No. KYP Type of Report and Period Covered Interim 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes Study Title: Interstate Safety Improvement Program 16. Abstract A previous report dealt with development of procedures for preparation of an Interstate Safety Improvement Program. The purpose of this report was to prepare prioritized rankings of recommended improvements which could be implemented for the Interstate Safety Improvement Program. Together, these two reports include logical and comprehensive procedures for the selection, scheduling, construction, and evaluation of highway safety improvement projects. Considerable detail is presented which documents analysis procedures used to determine sites, sections, and elements of the roadway in need of improvement. The average number of accidents per interchange, bridge, 1.0-mile (1.6-km) section, and 0.3-mile {0.48-km) spots were summarized for large urban, medium urban, and rural sections of the interstate system. At specified levels of statistical significance, critical numbers of accidents and critical accident rates were calculated to assist in identifying high-accident locations. A limited field inventory of the interstate system was conducted and the results are incorporated into the program. Dynamic programming was utilized as the means of developing prioritized rankings for safety improvements totaling approximately $27,500,000. Example budgets ranging from $5,000,000 to $30,000,000 are also presented. 17. Kefi Words Sa ety Improvements Interstate Highways Prioritizing Safety Needs Costs and Benefits Dynamic Programming 18. Distribution Statement 19. Security Clossif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21 No. of Pages 22. Price Form DOT F 1700, Reproduction of completed page authorized

5

6 Research Report 517 INTERSTATE SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM KYP-77-84; HPR-PL-1(14), Part III-B by Jerry G. Piginan Research Engineer Chief Kenneth R. Agent Research Engineer Principal and Charles V. Zegeer Research Engineer Principal Division of Research Bureau of Highways DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Commonwealth of Kentucky The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. T he contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Bureau of Highways, This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. March 1979

7

8 INTRODUCTION Considerable work has been done by the Kentucky Department of Transportation in the selectionj scheduling, construction, and evaluation of highway safety improvement projects. Most major safety improvement projects undertaken in the past have been justified on an individual basis and have not been part of an overall priority scheduling program. Such projects as removal of roadside obstacles, installation of median barriers, installation of crash cushions, overlaying slippery sections of pavements, and various delineation treatments have previously been singled out as specific improvement projects. These improvements have usually been accomplished by means of policy mandate whereby hazardous conditions of a certain type have been brought up to standards without specific justification or priority scheduling. Since 1968, the Kentucky Department of Transportation has had a program which involves minor safety improvements at high-accident locations. The high accident spot-improvement program was evaluated in 1972, and the results showed that a 31-percent reduction in accidents occurred at 168 locations improved during a 2 1/2-year period (1). Most of these safety improvements were signalization, installation of signs,/ roadway markings, post delineations, chailnelization, minor reconstruction, and general maintenance. Information obtained from the n1976 Annual Report, Kentucky Highway Safety Program, indicated that, during fiscal years 1975 and 1976, the high-accident spot-improvement program was comparatively inexpensive and that 105 improvements had an averaage cost of $3,030 each (2). To provide the highest degree of safety on the interstate system, there is a need to continually upgrade and make improvements in order to reduce the number and severity of accidents. The program described here is intended to identify specific locations, elements, or sections of highways that are hazardous or potentially hazardous, and to implement correction of the identified hazards. Accident analyses are the basis for recommending improvements. Also, interstate funds are not available for safety improvements unless justified and selected under the provisions of the Federal Highway Administration Program Manual (Volume 6, chapter 8, section 2, subsection 1) (3). A previous report dealt with development of procedures for preparation of an Interstate Safety Improvement Program (4). The purpose of this report was to prepare prioritized rankings of recommended improvements which could be implemented as part of the Interstate Safety Improvement Program. Together, these two reports present logical and comprehensive procedures for the selection, scheduling, construction, and evaluation of safety improvement projects. PROCEDURE ACCIDENT ANALYSES All police-reported accidents in Kentucky are coded and placed in a computer accident file. An extensive amount of data is coded for each accident. However, for the analysis necessary in this study, copies of the accident reports were necessary. To accomplish this, a manual search of all police-reported accidents in 1976 was conducted. There were slightly over 140,000 accidents reported in For the State Police-reported accidents, reports were filed by route and county and, therefore, not all of the reports had to be searched. However, most of the accidents were in urban areas and were not sorted. From the reports, each accident was classified into one of three broad categories: (I) interchange-related, (2) bridge-related, or (3) other highway sections. Each accident was assigned a code based on an analysis of the accident description. Listings of the codes and their descriptions for the three broad categories are given in Tables I, 2, and 3. These codes, along with information to identify the location of the accident, were punched on computer cards. The interstate system was divided into three groups based on population of the general area. One group was classified as large urban and consisted of sections of interstate routes in Jefferson and Kenton Counties. Interstate routes in Fayette, Boone, and Campbell counties made up the medium urban group. The remainder of the interstate system was classified as rural. Tills distinction was made because the accident statistics of interstate routes located in urban areas could not be compared directly to interstate roads located in medium urban or rural areas. Lists of high-accident interchanges, bridges, and other highway sections were obtained, A list of the location of interchanges and bridges was obtained. Accidents which were classified as either bridge- or interchange-related were assigned to a specific bridge or interchange. Using this procedure, the number of accidents which occurred on each interchange and bridge was obtained. The number of accidents could then be compared to a critical number of accidents. The critical number for an interchange, bridge, or specific length of road was calculated using the following formula (5): where N c N c Na K N a + K + 0.5, critical number of accidents and average number of accidents constant related to level of statistical significance selected (for P 0.95, K 1.645; for P 0.995, K 2.576).

9 TABLE 1. INTERCHANGE-RELATED ACCIDENT-EVENT CATEGORIES ENTRANCE RAMP 50 Rear-end Accident on Ramp 51 Sideswipe Accident on Ramp 52 Angle Accident between Ramp Vehicle and Mainline Vehicle 53 Rear-end Accident on Mainline at Ramp 54 Ramp Vehicle Hit Fixed Object near Ramp 55 Mainline Vehicle Hit Fixed Object near Ramp 56 Hit Median near Ramp 57 Sideswipe Accident between Mainline Vehicles 58 Accident at Intersection with Cross Street 59 Vehicle Malfunct ion 60 Extreme Weather Condit ions - Dense Fog, Driving Rain, Ice, or Snow 61 Drastic Human Error - Driver Fell Asleep wh ile Driving, etc. 62 Other Accident Related to Entrance Ramp 63 Construction-related Accident 64 Vehicle Overturned 65 Ran off Road 66 Animal-related Accident 67 Trailer-related Accident EXIT RAMP 70 Rear-end Accident on Ramp 71 Sideswipe du e to Vehicle Turning onto Ramp from Wrong Lane 72 Sideswipe Accident on Ramp 73 Vehicle Hit Fixed Object in Gore 74 Vehicle Hit Fixed Object not in Gore 75 Rear-end Accident before Ramp 76 Sideswipe du e to Lane Drop 77 Accident at Intersection with Cross Street 78 Vehicle Hit Median near Ramp 79 Vehicle Malfunction 80 Extreme Weather Conditions - Dense Fog, Driving Rain, Ice, or Snow 81 Drastic Human Error - Fell Asleep wh ile Driving, etc. 82 Other Accident Related to Exit Ramp 83 Construction-related Accident 84 Crash-Cushion Accident 85 Vehicle Overturned 86 Ran off Road 87 Animal-related Accident 88 Trailer-related Accident 2

10 TABLE 2. BRIDGE-RELATED ACCIDENT-EVENT CATEGORIES 1 Hit Approach Guardrail 2 Hit Guardrail Just Past Bridge 3 Hit Bridge Abutment 4 Hit Bridge,Rail 5 Hit Bridge Curb 6 Accident on Bridge after Sliding on Wet or ley Deck 7 Hit Another Car on Bridge - Dry Conditions 8 Hit Overpass Bridge Pier on_right Side of Road 9 Hit Overpass Bridge Pier on Left Side of Road 10 Vehicle Overturned 11 Other Bridge-related Accident 12 Construction-related Accident 13 Rear-end Accident on Bridge 14 Vehicle Malfunction 15 Drastic Human Error 16 Ran off Road 17 Animal-related Accident 18 Trailer-related Accident or Wide Load TABLE 3. NON-INTERCHANGE-RELATED ACCIDENT EVENT CATEGORIES 20 Rear-end Accident on Shoulder 21 Rear-end Accident in Traffic Lane 22 Sideswipe Accident due to Lane Ch nge 23 Sideswipe or Rear-end Accident due to Car Pulling from Shoulder 24 Hit Median Barrier 25 Hit Fixed Object on Right Side of Road 26 Hit Fixed Object on Left Side of Road 27 Median Cut - Rear-end due to U-turn 28 Median Cut - Angle or Other Accident due to U-turn 29 Head-on Collision 30 Wrong-way Vehicle - Other Collision 31 Construction Area Accident 32 Accident at Rest Area 33 Accident at Entrance or Exit Ramp to Rest Area 34 Weigh Station Accident 35 Vehicle Malfunction - Tire Blowout, Brakes Failed, etc. 36 Extreme Weather Conditions - Heavy Fog, Driving Rain, lee, or Snow 37 Drastic Human Error - Fell Asleep while Driving, etc. 38 Other Non-interchange Accident or Not Stated 39 Vehicle Overturned 40 Forced off Road 41 Trailer-related Accident or Wide Load 42 Ran off Roadway 43 Animal-related Accident 3

11 The average number of accidents per interchange, bridge, mile, and spot (0.3 mile (0.48 km)) were calculated for the large urban, medium urban, and rural sections of interstate roads as well as the entire i terstate system. Using certain levels of statistical significance, critical numbers of accidents were calculated. Also, using volume data, average and critical accident rates were calculated. A traffic volume map was used to determine volumes for sections according to mileposts. For bridges, the length of bridge along with the volume provided vehicle-miles (vehicle-kilometers). The vehicle-miles (vehicle-kilometers) traveled on a particular section of road was calculated directly from the volume and section length. For interchanges, the total interchange volume was estimated using the volume and the number of ramps. Interchange volume counts were used to obtain the percentage of the total interchange volume occurring on the ramp. Volume counts were available only for a few interchanges, and other volumes had to be estimated, The critical rate for highway sections is given by the following formula (6): A c A a + K YA a /m + I /(2m), where A c critical accident rate, in accidents per million vehicle-miles ( 1.6 million vehicle-kilometers) A 8 average accident rate, in accidents per million vehicle-miles ( 1.6 milllon vehicle-kilometers), and m = annual vehicle-miles (million vehicle-kilometers). For spots and interchanges, the total annual volume was used rather than the number of vehicle miles. Thus, the values of A c and A8 were expressed in terms of accidents per million vehicles. Dividing the calculated accident rate for a particular interchange, bridge, or roadway section by the critical accident rate for the location results in a critical rate factor. A critical rate factor above 1.0 means that the location has a critically high accident rate. A computer listing by critical rate factor (in descending order) was then obtained for each category. These lists served as one of the primary means of selecting high-accident locations. Summaries were also made of the number of occurrences of each of the accident types. These lists gave general information relating to the types of accidents which occurred most frequently. The severity of each type of accident was also calculated. The severity index is given by the following formula (I): where N t EPDO K = A Severity Index (SI) EPDO/N t, B = c PDO = total -number of accidents, 9.5 (K + A) (B + C)+ PDO, number of fatal accidents, number of A-type injury accidents (accidents where an A-type injury was the most severe injury sustained), number of B-type injury accidents, number of C-type injury accidents, and number of property-damage-only accidents. As previously stated, a large amount of data is routinely coded for each police-reported accident. To obtain summaries of this information, a series of computer programs was written. A list of the accident characteristics summarized from the accident file is given in Table 4. Another procedure was used to determine locations which had a critical number of a particular type of accident. The average number of accidents per mile (kilometer) of a specific type was calculated for each of the three interstate categories. Using the formula given for determining a critical number of accidents, the critical number of accidents per mile (kilometer) was calculated. Some of the specific types investigated included injury and fatal accidents, accident occurring during darkness, accidents involving guardrail, and accidents involving a rock cut or earth embankment. A special investigation of fatal accidents occurring on the interstate system was performed. Copies of the accident reports of all accidents involving a fatality were obtained for a 4-year period ( ). Reports of all fatal accidents for this time period were not available and were being filed separately. Therefore, only a small number of accident reports had to be searched manually. Information from these reports was coded and summarized. Each accident was placed into one of several accident description categories. Sections of interstate where several fatal accidents had occurred were summarized. Also, locations where several accidents of a specific type had occurred were summarized. Some other types of accident summaries were prepared, A comparison of accident data on bridges with and without full-width shoulders was made. A comparison of accident rates on bridges with various sufficiency (adequacy) ratings was performed, Also, interchanges were divided into several types and accident rates were calculated for each type. 4

12 TABLE 4. ACCIDENT CHARACTERISTICS SUMMARIZED FROM COMPUTERIZED AND CODED DATA 1 Summary by highway number 2 Summary by roadway surface 3 Summary by roadway character 4 Summary by lighting condition 5 Summary by month 6 Summary by day of week 7 Summary by type of accident (1st event) 8 Summary by type of accident (2nd event) 9 Summary by population of city 10 Summary by traffic control 11 Summary by weather 12 Summary by location of first event 13 Summary by accident description 14 Summary by contributing factors - environmental 15 Summary by contributing factors - vehicular 16 Summary by contributing factors - human 17 Summary by pre-accident vehicle action 18 Summary by driver residence 19 Summary by vehicle type 20 Summary by hour of day 21 Summary by county 22 Summary by city 23 Summary by type of injury 24 Summary by violations 25 Summary by directional analysis FIELD INVENTORY It was necessary to travel the entire interstate system (approyjmately 650 miles (1,046 km)) for the purpose of visually inspecting the high accident locations and conducting an inventory of selected items. The. accident analysis yielded lists of high accident bridges, interchanges, sections, and spots (0.3-mile (0.48-km) sections). The accident reports for these high-accident locations were studied, and a visual inspection was also conducted. These were done along.with a field inventory. The analysis of specific accident types indicated that certain roadway features should be upgraded. For example, the present standard for guardrail ends is the breakaway cable terminal. However, only a few sections of interstate have this type of terminal. l\lost sections have buried guardrail ends, and a few blunt ends still exist. It was nece sary to conduct an inventory of the number of each type of guardrail end to estimate the costs of updating all guardrail ends to current standards. A listing of the general roadway features included in the field inventory is given in Table 5. The number of buried, breakaway, and blunt guardrail ond was determined for guardrail used as protection for fills, bridge piers, bridge rails, and gaps between bridges. The type of protection used for median bridge piers was noted. Guardrail, earth mounds, and crash cushions have been used. For bridges, the shoulder width, the existence of a curb, type of protection for the median gap, and the safety features were inventoried. The safety features consisted of the bridge rail and guardrail transition and end treatment. Safety features had previously been rated as good or poor and these ratings were checked. The number of rigid signs and lightpoles were counted. All gore areas were classified as clear, or the features in the gore were noted. The features included an exit sign (if not breakaway), lightpole, guardrail, or combination of several features. The lengths of all rock cuts closer than 30 feet (9.1 m) to the pavement were tabulated. The rock cuts were divided into those occurring on curves or tangents. Median crossovers were also counted Crossovers were divided into those which were designed and those which had been created by frequent use. All of the features inventoried, with the exception of bridges, were summarized by mile and mileposts. Photographs of various roadway features. are presented in APPENDIX A. 5

13 TABLE 5. ROADWAY FEATURES INCLUDED IN FIELD INVENTORY 1 Type of Guardrail End 2 Bridge Pier Protection 3 Bridge Shoulder Width 4 Bridge Safety Features 5 Curb on Bridge 6 Protection of Gap between Bridges 7 Signs 8 Lightpoles 9 Gore Area Features 10 Rock Cuts ll Crossovers DETERMINATION OF BENEFITS AND COSTS To obtain a priority ranking of the recommended safety improvements, benefits and costs had to be assigned. The annual benefits were calculated based on the actual number of fatal, injury, and property-damage-only accidents which would be affected by the improvement and the estimated percentage reduction in each of these types of accidents. Monetary benefits from the reduction in accidents were based on the following National Safety Council costs (1976) for various degrees of accident severity (7): Fatality Injury Property-Damage- Only Accident $125,000 $ 4,700 $ 670 The percentage reductions used were based on previous research findings for the type of improvements considered as well as subjective opinions based on results of past safety improvement programs. The costs used were the actual installation or construction cost of the improvement plus the annual- maintenance cost. The improvement cost was based on past unit-price bids for the type of improvement, other research reports, and information from manufacturers of various safety devices. The present worth of the benefits was calculated from a given interest rate, an exponential growth rate factor for traffic volume, and a service life for each improvement. Benefit-cost ratios were then determined for each improvement type. ADEQUACY RATINGS One of the information sources utilized to identify 6 substandard and hazardous interstate bridges was the adequacy rating of each bridge. This procedure involves the subjective or objective rating of condition, safety, and service elements of all bridges. The rated elements are substructure (12 points), superstructure (8 points), floor condition (8 points), design loading (8 points), roadway width (15 points), approach alignment (8 points), traffic safety features (12 points), roadway height (10 points), waterway (5 points), and remaining life (10 points). Maximum rating is 100 points, which corresponds to a new condition. Bridges with a rating below 70 are considered to be candidates for improvement. Also, individual elements with particularly poor ratings may be identified for improvements. Some rating values are based on design criteria (appraisal ratings) such as design loading, roadway width, and traffic safety features. Other values are rated based on subjective judgments such as the condition of substructure, superstructure, or bridge deck (floor). Details of the adequacy ratings of bridges are described in an earlier report ( 8). Adequacy ratings were useful in selecting various types of bridge improvements on the interstate system. All bridges were listed by computer in order of priority according to the adequacy rating. Separate priority listings were also made by each of the rating elements. All bridges with deficient traffic safety features were included in the recommended list of improvements and included (I) upgrading approach guardrail, (2) upgrading bridge rail, (3) attaching approach guardrail to bridge structure, and ( 4) installation of acceptable end treatment on approach guardrail. Besides these improvements, bridges with substandard widths were considered for widening projects.

14 DYNAMIC PROGRAMMING Multistage dynamic programming was used as the means of priority ranking the improvements. Using the present worth of the benefits and costs of the improvemen-ts along with a specific program budget, the combination of improvements which would yield the greatest benefits was determined. Several hypothetical budgets were input into the program, and the improvement types which would yield optimum results were output for each budget. Procedures used for ranking were similar to those applied to Kentucky's high-accident spot-improvement program in a previous study (9 ). ACCIDENT ANALYSES RESULTS The manual search of the 1976 reports yielded a total of 5,948 accidents occurring on the interstate system. These accidents were classified by geometric and population group as shown in Table 6. The largest percentage of the accidents occurred in large urban areas (64 percent). Also, the largest percentage of the accidents were not related to either a bridge or interchange (74 percent). The percentage of bridge-related accidents was apout the same for the three population groups. However, the percentage of interchange-related accidents was much higher for the large urban group, and the percentage of non-bridge or interchange accidents was highest for the rural group. All of the accidents were classified into the categories shown in Tables 1, 2, and 3. In some cases, an accident could not be classified as a single event. Summaries of the number of accidents in the categories for interchange accidents, bridge-related accidents, and accidents on other highway sections are given in Tables 7, 8, and 9, respectively. The immber of first events and all events for each category is given as well as the percentage of all accidents in each category. The combined severity index of each category is also given. Interchange accidents (Table 7) were found to occur on the exit ramp rather than the entrance ramp. On both the exit and entrance ramp, the largest number of accidents were the rear end type. On entrance ramps, the category of rear-end accidents was followed by angle accidents between a vehicle leaving the ramp and a vehicle on the mainline, indicating that merging created the largest number of accidents. On exit ramps, rearmend accidents were much higher than any other type. These accidents were caused in most cases by drivers not properly slowing when exiting. Some of the most severe accidents involved hitting a fixed object. Bridge-related accidents (Table 8) commonly involved ice or water on the deck. Bridge-related accidents involved several severe accident types. The most severe types primarily involved hitting a bridge pier or abutment or the bridge curb. Accidents on other highway!lections (Table 9) were predominantly the rear-e:nd-- type. Sideswipe accidents were the second most frequent. Many of these were low in severity. The most severe involved collisiions with fixed objects, single vehicle accidents, and head-on collisions. TABLE 6. ACCIDENTS BY GEOMETRIC AND POPULATION GROUPS POPULATION GROUP LARGE MEDIUM ACCIDENT TYPE URBAN URBAN RURAL TOTAL Bridge-Related Interchange-Related ,144 Other 2, ,427 4,394 Total 3, ,652 5,948 7

15 TABLE 7. TYPES OF INTERCHANGE ACCIDENTS FIRST EVENT ALL EVENTS NUMBER OF PERCENT NUMBER OF PERCENT SEVERITY TYPE OF ACCIDENT ACCIDENTS OF ToTAL ACCIDENTS OF TOTAL INDEX ENTRANCE RAMP Rear-end accident on ramp Angle accident between ramp vehicle and mainline vehicle Ramp vehicle hit fixed object Accident at intersection with cross street Rear-end accident on mainline at ramp Sideswipe accident on ramp Other accident related to entrance ramp Sideswipe accident between mainline vehicles Extreme weather conditions (dense fog, driving rain, ice or snow) Vehicle overturned Drastic human error (driver fell asleep) Ran off road Trailer problem Mainline vehicle hit fixed object near ramp Vehicle malfunction Hit median near ramp Animal-related accident Construction-related accident Subtotal EXIT RAMP Rear end accident on ramp Accident at intersection with cross street Rear-end accident before ramp Vehicle hit fixed object not in gore Vehicle hit fixed object in gore Extreme weather conditions (dense fog, driving rain, ice or snow) Other accident related to exit ramp Sideswipe accident on ramp Drastic human error (driver fell asleep) Vehicle overturned Ran off road Sideswipe due to Vehicle turning onto ramp from wrong lane Vehicle malfunction Crash-cushion accident Construction-related accident Vehicle hit median near ramp Sideswipe due to lane drop Trailer problem Animal-related accident Subtotal Total 1, ,

16 TABLE 8. TYPES OF BRIDGE-RELATED ACCIDENTS FIRST EVENT ALL EVENTS TYPE OF ACCIDENT NUMBER OF PERCENT NUMBER OF PERCENT SEVERITY ACCIDENTS OF TOTAL ACCIDENTS OF TOTAL INDEX Accident on bridge after sliding on icy or wet deck Hit bridge rail Rear-end accident on bridge Hit another car on bridge-dry conditions Construction accident Hit bridge abutment Hit bridge curb Hit guardrail just past pridge Vehicle overturned Drastic human error Hit approach guardrail Vehicle malfunction Hit overpass bridge pier on left side of road Other bridge-related accident Hit overp ass bridge pier on right side of road Trailer or wide load problem Ran off road Animal- elated accident Total TABLE 9. TYPES OF NON-INTERCHANGE ACCIDENTS FIRST EVENT ALL EVENTS TYPE OF ACCIDENT NUMBER OF PERCENT NUMBER OF PERCENT SEVERITY ACCIDENTS OF TOTAL ACCIDENTS OF TOTAL INDEX Rear-end accident in traffic lane Sideswipe accident due to lane change Hit fixed object on right side of road Extreme weather conditions - heavy fog, driving rain, ice or snow Other non-interchange accident or not-stated Vehicle overturned Vehicle malfunction - tire blowout, brakes failed, etc. Drastic human error - fell asleep while driving, etc. Hit fixed object on left side of road Trailer problem or wide load Ran off road Hit median barrier Rear-end accident on shoulder Construction Area accident Head-on collision Forced off road Animal-related accident Accident at rest area Accident at entrance or exit ramp to rest area Median cut - angle or other accident due to U-turn Sideswipe or rear-end accident due to car pulling from shoulder Median cut - rear-end due to U-turn Weigh Station accident Wrong-way vehicle - other collision 1, , p ', Total ,0 5,

17 Data on the number of accidents for each population group along with the mileage and average volume (AADT) of each group permitted calculation of average and critical numbers of accidents and rates. These values were found for accidents on the entire system (Table 10), bridge-related accidents (Table 11), interchange-related accidents (Table 12), and accidents on other highway sections (Table 13). Whereas 77 percent of the interstate mileage was in rural areas, only 28 percent of all accidents occurred in those areas. Even though the volume was much lower in rural areas, the accident rate for large urban areas was found to be over five times that in rural areas (Table 10). The number of accidents per mile (1.6 km) in a large urban area was approximately 14 times that in the rural area. The critical number of accidents, for a level of significance of 99.5 percent, varied from a value of 65 accidents per mile (1.6 km) for urban areas to 8 accidents per mile (1.6 km) for rural areas. The average rate, expressed as accidents per 100 million vehicle-miles (160 million vehicle-kilometers), was higher on bridges than on the total interstate system (Table II). The average and critical number of accidents per bridge was lower in rural areas. However, when volumes were considered, the average accident rate was slightly higher in rural areas. For interchange related accidents, the accident rate was expressed in accidents per million vehicles (Table 12). The number of accidents per interchange in large urban areas was over nine times that for rural areas. Also, the number of interchanges per mile (1.6 km) in large urban areas was over five times that for rural areas. The average accident rate was lower for the 110ther highway sections11 compared to the interstate system (Table 13). The critical number of accidents per spot (0.3 mile (0.48 km)) and per mile (1.6 km) was calculated for each population group. The number of accidents per mile (1.6 km) and the accident rate were much higher in large urban areas. TABLE 10. ACCIDENT AND VOLUME DATA ON INTERSTATES (ALL ACCIDENTS) LARGE MEDIUM URBAN URBAN RURAL TOTAL Number of accidents 3, ,652 5,948 Total miles (km) (135.3) (101. 7) (813.5) (1050.5) Accidents per mile ( l. 6 km) Critical accidents per mile (P=95.0) (1.6 km) Critical acc ident s per mile (P = 99.5) (1.6 km) Average AADT 40,623 27,305 15,669 20,528 Million vehicle-miles (km) 1, , 892 4,892 (2, 006) (1,014) (4,635) (7,871) Average accident rate * Accidents per 100 million vehicle-miles (160 mill ion vehiclekilomete rs) lo

18 TABLE 11. SUMMARY OF ACCIDENTS AND VOLUMES ON BRIDGES LARGE URBAN MEDIUM URBAN RURAL TOTAL Numb er of accidents Numb er of bridges Acc idents per bridge Critical acc idents per bridge (P 95.0) Critical acc idents per bridge (P 99. 5) Average AADT , , , ,864 Averag e accident rate (Accidents per 100 million vehicles) Average length per bridge,262 (feet) (m) (79. 9) Total bridge length (miles) (km) 6.45 (10.4) Million vehicle-miles (km) (193.7) Averag e accident rat e* ( 85. 0) (1. 53) 10.3 (16.6) (86.6) (83.2) (1.20) (23.94) (62.1) (272.4) * Acc idents per 100 million vehicle-mi les (160 million vehiclekilometers) TABLE 12. SUMMARY OF ACCIDENTS AND VOLUMES ON INTERCHANGES LARGE URBAN MEDIUM URBAN RURAL TOTAL Numb er of accidents Numb er of interchanges Accidents per int erchange Critical acc idents per interchang e 21 9 (P 95.0) Critical acc idents per int erchange (P 99. 5) Average AADT 68,046 31,678 Average accident rate (Acc idents per million vehicles) Interchanges per Mile (1.6 km) , ,638 40, ll

19 TABLE 13. ACCIDENT AND VOLUME DATA ON INTERSTATES (EXCLUDING BRIDGE AND INTERCHANGE ACCIDENTS) LARGE URBAN MEDIUM URBAN RURAL TOTAL Number of Accidents 2, ,427 4,394 Total Miles (km) 84.1 (135.3) Accidents per Mile (1.6 km) (101.7) (818.5) 2.8 6,529 (1,050.5) 6. 7 Accidents per Spot 9.2 (0.3-mile (483-m) segment) Critical Accidents per Spot 16 (P = 95.0) Critical Accidents per Spot 18 (P = 99.5) Critical Accidents per Mi le 42 (1.6 km) (P = 95.5) Critical Accidents per Mi le (1.6 km) (P = 99.5) Average AADT 40,623 27,305 15,669 20,528 Mi llion Vehic le-mi les (km) 1,247 (2,006) Averag e Accident Rate* (1,014) 61 2,892 (4,653) 49 4,892 (7,871) 90 * Accidents per 100 million vehic le-mi les (160 million vehic lekilometers) The accident rate, critical rate, and critical rate factor were calculated for each bridge. Computer listings in order by critical rate factor were prepared for all bridges in each population group (Tables 14, 15, and 16). All of the computer listings of high-accident bridges, interchanges,!-mile (1.6-km) sections, and spots (0.3 mile (0.48 km) were made in descending order of the critical rate factor. This was done because the critical rate factor was the means used to rank highaaccident locations.the listing gave location {county, route, and milepost), volume, bridge length, sufficiency rating, number of accidents, accident rate, critical accident rate, and critical rate factor. Similar printouts were made for each interchange in each population group (Tables 17, 18, and 19). These printouts were also in order by critical rate factor and gave the location and accident information. In addition, the number of ramps and number of accidents per ramp, entrance ramp, and exit ramp were given. Also, the total interchange volume was given. The critical number of accidents in a l mile (1.6-km) section or 0.3-mile (0.48-km) spot (excluding bridge and interchange accidents) for each population group had been determined previously. A listing of all of these locations was obtained. Volumes were found, and the accident rate, critical accident rate, and critical rate factor were determined. Computer listings were made for the!-mile (1.6-km) and 0.3-mile (0.48-km) locations in order by route and mileposts (Tables 20 and 21). 12

20 TABLE 14. LISTING OF BRIDGES IN ORDER BY CRITICAL RATE FACTOR I LARGE URBAN AREASl ANALYSIS OF BRIDGE DATA CRIT CRIT BRIDGE SUFF. NO. ACCG ACC RATE co RT MP VOL LENGTH RATING ACCS RATE RATE FACTOR KENTON 9075 J l JEFFERSON JEFFERSON KENTON m JEFFERSON o.. as JEFFERSON [ eQ JEFFERSON JEFFERSON 9264 ll.. O ?.as o.az JEFFERSON e o JEFFERSON 9264 l7el Oe73 JEFFERSON JEFFERSON 9264 l3e JEFFERSON JEFFERSON 9064 s.o KENTON ,53 27g JEFFERSON 9071 [ a JEFFERSON s.oo JEFFERSON o JEFFERSON e Ca JEFFERSON o JEFFERSON JEFFERSON JEFFERSON JEFFERSON JEFFERSON JEFFERSON JEFFERSON 't JEFFERSON o44 0.,43 JEFFERSON JEFFERSO Oo4l JEFFERSON e64 3., JEFFERSON Oo40 JEFFERSON ) I JEFFERSON JEPFERSON JEFFERSON ! JEFFERSON $ JEFFERSON JEFFERSON z.. z o.. 32 JEFFERSON JEFFERSON JEFFERSON JEFFERSON ! JEFFERSON ! a0l 1C a JEFFERSON e eQ7 0.,27 JEFFERSON o ol6 Oe27 JEFFERSON 906' p8 2el Oa23 JEFFERSON JEFFERSON 9071 Oo a.. o7 o.. zo JEFFERSON JEFFt:RSON 9065 l31o JEFFERSON z e JEFFERSON 9065 l33e KENTON e JEFFERSON [ o KEf'..! TON ! JEFH:RSON o KENTON Oo ,11 JEFFERSON a88 o.. oa JEFFERSON o.oo o.. oo JEFFERSON o.. oo 13., 39 o.. oo JEFFERSON o.. oo lce oo JEFFERSON o.oo o.. oo JEFFERSON e ! o.oo o.. oo JEFFERSON o.. oo oo o

21 TABLE 14 I CONTINUED I ANALYSIS OF BRIDGE DATA CRIT CRIT BRIDGE SUF F. NO. ACC ACC RATE co RT MP VOL LENGTH RATING ACCS RATE RATE FACTOR JEFFERSON 9065 l30o o.oo o.. oo JEFFERSON lo o.oo 7.29 o.. oo JEFFERSON <; o.. oo 6.15 o.. oo JEFFERSON o o.oo 7.21 o.oo JEFFERSON o o.oo o.oo JEFFERSON lo o.oo 6.61 o.oo JEFFERSON o.. oo 5o4l o.oo JEFFERSON o o.oo 6.48 o.oo JEFFERSON o.oo o.oo JEFFERSON o.oo lcoll o.oo JEFFERSON o.oo 9.89 o.oo JEFFERSON a.. oo 6.61 o.oo JEFFERSON a.. oo o.. oo JEFFERSON ll2 0 o.. oo D.,OO JEFFERSON o.oo o.oo JEFFERSON o.oo 4.53 o.oo JEFFERSON 9065 l36e o.. oo 5o 15 DoDO JEFFERSON o.oo o.oo JEFFERSON 9071 o.o o.oo o.oo JEFFERSON 9071 o.s JEFFERSON 9071 o o.. oo o.oo JEFFERSON 9071 s.o o.oo 8.36 o.oo JEFFERSON 9071 s.o o.. oo o.oo JEFFERSON 9071 s.o o.oo 8.08 o.oo JEFFERSON 9071 s.o o.. oo o.. oo o.oo o.oo JEFFERSON 9071 s.o o.oo 7.84 o.oo JEFFERSON 9071 Sol o.oo o.oo JEFFERSON o.oo o.. oo JEFFERSON o.oo o.. oo JEFFERSON 9264 o o.. oo 8.09 o.oo JEFFERSON 9264 Oo o.oo o.. oo JEFFERSON ! o.oo o.. oo JEFFERSON o.ao o.oo JEFFERSON o.oo o.oo JEFFERSON o.oo o.. oo JEFFERSON o.. ao o.. oo JEFFERSON o.. oo u.. 56 o.oo JEFFERSON a o.. oo o.. oo JEFFERSON o.oo o.oo JEFFERSON ! 0 o.oo o.oo JEFFERSON e58 o.oo JEFFERSON o.. oo o.oo JEFFERSON 9264 s.o O.'OO o.oo JEFFERSON o.. oo o.oo JEFFERSON o.. oo o.. oo JEFFERSON o.oo o.oo JEFFERSON o.oo o.oo JEFFERSON o.oo o.oo JEFFERSON o.. ao o.oo JEFFERSON o.. oo o.. oo JEFFERSON o.. oo 8.. 5o o.ou JEFFERSON o.oo 7.67 o.. oo JEFFERSON o o.oo o.oo JEFFERSON o.oo o.. oo JEFFERSON Do o.. oo JEFFERSON o o oo o.oo JEFFERSON o.. oo oo JEFFERSON o.oo o.. oo JEFFERSON 926_ o.oo 8.,22 o.oo JEFFERSON c.oo o.. oo JEFFERSON 9065 s.o o.oo 9.41 o.. oo KENTON o.oo o.oo KENTON 185e OeOO 6e09 o.. oo KENTON KENTON 9075 l90e o.oo o.oo KENTON o.oo o.. oo o.oo 7el8 o.. oo AVERAGE AOT or 130 RECORDS IS 52065

22 TABLE 15. LISTING OF BR IDGES IN ORBER BY CRI TICAL RA TE FACTOR!MED IUM URBAN AREAS I BR IDGE SUFF NO. ACC. ACC CR!T CRIT RATE co RT MP VOL LENGTH RATING ACCS RATE RATE FACTOR FAYETTE e FAYETTE o Oo64 fayette BOONE o53 9.! BOONE o59 0,46 FAYETTE 9075 lloo FAYETTE Oo43 FAYETTE o 21 4o FAYETTE BOONE BOONE o FAYETTE ,22 BOONE o.oo 1 o. 88 o.oo FAYETTE o.oo o.oo fayette o o.oo o.oo FAYETTE o l o.oo o.oo FAYETTE o FAYETTE o.oo o o.oo o.oo 15

23 TABLE 16. LISTING OF BR IDGES IN ORDER BY CRI TICAL RATE FACTOR!RURAL AREAS I CRIT CRIT BRIDGE SUFF o,a. ACCo ACC RATE co RT MP VOL LENGTH RATING ACCS RATE RATE FACTOR BOYD ' WHITLEY BOYD o43 HARDIN lo35 SIMPSON e lol9 CLARK lo05 BOYD Zl.'H Oo93 BARREN o l3e36 0,86 t-i ADISON 9075 so.a l0o58 o.. ss SCOTT o CARTER laurel ROWAN CARTER Oo74 ROWAN o l6o HENRY & a.oa 11o40 o. 71 WARREN MAO I SON o llooo Oo68 BARREN o SHELBY o o Oo64 SIMPSON a o o. sa CARROLL o CARROLl BATH o HARD IN o4l SCOTT CARTER lo o Oo48 HARDIN o SCOTT o67 1Co SCOTT l34o Bl 2 4o FRANKLIN a. 1 o FRANKLIN Oo41 SCOTT o o SHELBY o 12 Oo39 LAUREL FRANKLIN o4l l7o HARDIN WHITLEY s BATH 9064 l18o WARREN o CARROll o BOYD o BATH o o HART o WHITLEY [ o WHITLEY o WH ITLEY o WARREN o SHELBY o o FRANKLIN o o54 14o FRANKLIN Oo31 SHELBY u WOODFORD o l3o 82 Oo30 ROCKCASTLE 9075 SHELBY e e BULL IT 9065 ll2o a 15 Oo26 HENRY Oo26 WHITLEY HARDIN o o27 1Co60 0 o2l FRANKLIN a o CARROLL o18 WHITLEY o WARREN HARDIN o LAUREL o BARREN o o.oo l2o23 o.oo Hi

24 TABLE l6. (CONTINUED I CRIT CRIT BRIDGE SUFF e NO Ace.. ACC RATE co RT MP VOL LENGTH RATING ACCS RATE RATE FACTOR HART lo o.oo 8ol5 o.oo hart o o.oo oo HART o o.ao Uo HARDIN o Bl 0 o.ao o.oo HARDIN lo o.oo o.oo BULL 1 TT o7 2: o.oo llo46 o.oo bull ITT o.oo oo BULLITT l 76 0 o.oo o.oo BULL I TT o.oo o.oo BULL I TT o.oo 7.57 o.ao OLDHIM 9071 l4o o.. oo o.oo OLDHIM l8c o.oo o.oo HENRY 907l z o.oo 1 s. 2 7 o.oo CARROLL e o.oo l3o 30 o.oo GALLATIN o o.ao o.oo GALLATIN o.oo l6o43 o.oo GALLATIN o.oo o.oo GALLATIN so 0 o.oo o.oo GALLATIN o.oo o.oo WHITLEY 0 o.oo o.oo WHITLEY o o.oo o.oo WHITLEY 1o o WHITLEY o.oo o.oo Y,HI TLEY 9075 lob o.oo o.oo WHITLEY [ o.oo l o.oo WHITLEY o.oo 16o20 o.oo LAUREL o.oo o.oo LAUREL 33o o.oo o.oo LAUREL 39. l O OO o.oo LAUREL 42o o.oo a. oo ROCKCASTLE o o.oo ROCKCASTLE 62o o.oo oo /IOISON o o.oo o.oo MADI SON oz 88 0 o.oo l2o69 o.oo SCOTT 121o c.oo o.oo SCOTT o.oo o.oo scott o.oo o.oo CCRACKEN 9024 o.o o.oo 6.58 o.oo MCCRACKEN 9024 z.z o.oo o.oo MCCRACKEN 9024 z.q BZ 0 o.oo 36o32 o.oo MCCRACKEN lbl 82 0 o.oo o.ao f>'. ((RACKEN o c.oo o.oo MCC RACKEN o.oo o.oo ChRISTIAN z c.oo o.oo C RISTIAN o.oo 2 o. 7 2 o.oo CHRISTIAN o.oo o.oo ChRIST I AN o.oo CHRISTIAN l o.oo o.oo o.oo Ct-RISTIAN o.oo 18.tl7 o.oo SHELBY o.oo o.oo SHELBY o z a.oo o.oo FRANKLIN o.oo 1'1.93 o.oo FRANKLIN o.oo 3Co40 o.oo FRANKL IN o.oo o.oo WGOOFORO o lzz 88 0 c.ao o.. oo lo. COOF-ORO o.oo o.oo ONTFQMERY o.oo o.oo BATH o.oo o.ao BATH a.oo o.ao IH T H o.oo 1 g. 2 1 o.oo ROWAN 9064 '1 37o o.oo o.oo CARTER o.oo o.oo CARTER d15 ' 84 0 o.oo 3lo69 o.oo CARTER o.oo a.oo CARTER la o.. ao o.oo CARTER o.oo o.oo CARTER o.oo o.oo BOYD o.oo 14o3S o.oo SIMPSON : o.. oo OoOO SIMPSON o.oo o.oo SIMP5GN o.oo o.oo WARREN <> z o.oo 12.'t0 o.oo

25 TABLE 17. LISTING OF INTERCHANGES IN ORDER BY CRITICAL RATE FAC TOR ILARGE URBAN AREAS) co RT MP NO TOTAL NO OF ACC CRITICAL CRITICAL ACC/ ACC/ ACC/ ACCS INTERCHANGE RAMPS RATE RATE RATE RAMP ENT EXIT VOLUME FACTOR RAMP RAMP o30 loq6 )oll o.o lo a.oo a.so 7o o B e s.so z.oa o.oo B 1.41 o.as z.oo lobo l ol o75 4o50 s.oo o45 7 lo63 1.' B o.as lo z l4o lo lo 28 s.so 1.oo 4o lo z. 50 z.oo s.oo lo t.oo uooso.oo B o o13 3o50 4e Oo s.so Oo8l e e o e00 So 50 2o Oa81 o.sa 0.92 a.oo s.so o81 B 0.84 Oe B Oa69 Oo a Oo69 o.85 o oo o.8o looo o.8o B Oo o o. 71 l J.oo s.oo 1.oo ' Oo61 o.8s o 50 8.so B 0.68 Oo o o.s7 Oa oQO a2ooo.oo 0 Oo57 o.a oa.oo o.oo lo o ll o85 l o.sa o.oo lb o3Q Oo o o o oo B o s.oo o Oo Oo4l o.oo Oo36 o o 50 2o 00 9o Oo36 o.sa 0.41 s a.oo o. 32 o.sa 0.37 s.oo o.8a Q o.oo Oo32 o.8a 0.37 loo 00 s.oo o.oo o o.so ll o o B 0.27 o o25 1o25 lo Oo oo o l. 13 1o 25 1.oo Oo o. 25 o Oo oo o50 o.oo l o.oo o. 16 o.8a o o Oo50 1a00 o.oo o laoo t.oo l o. lo 3oOO o.oo o.oo o10 4 Oo13 Oa84 Od lo B oll 0.15 Oo25 o.oo B Oel Oo75 o.z Ool2 l.o 1 o. 12 looo l. 00 1o DolO Oo87 o.u Oo oo o.a8 o. ll 1.50 looo B o.o8 o.85 o.1o o l o.os loll o.oa Oa25 o.so o.oo l. 05 Oo o.oo o o.o1 1.oo o o.a Oo25 o.oo o.so o.oo 1o30 o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo a.oo 1 alo o.oo c. 00 o. 00 o.oo loo B o.oo o.8s o.oo o.oo o. DO c.oo o.oo o.8a o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.as o.oo o.oo 0 00 o.oo o.oo 1o02 o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o85 o.oo 0.98 o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.85 o.oo o. 00 o.oo o.oo AVERAGE AOT FOR 72 RECORDS WA

26 TABLE 18. LISTING OF INTERCHANGES IN ORDER!MEDIUM URBAN AREAS I BY CRITICAL RATE FACTOR co RT MP NO TOTAL NO OF ACC CRITICAL ACCS INTERCHANGE RAMPS RATE RATE VOLUME CRITICAL RATE FACTOR A CCI RAMP ACC / ENT RAMP A CCI EX IT RAMP o lo o Oo n o.aa o o o00 4 Ool Oo l o.oa o.oa o.oo o.oo o20 4 o.oo o.oo Oo o.oo o.. a o.oo l oo 4 o.oo Oo55 o Oo , o.oo o.oo o.oo o.ao o.oo o.oo o.oo BoBO Go Oo o.5o Oo25 Co25 c.oo o.oo c.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.. oo s.oo Oo50 o.. so L.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo a.oo o.oo o. 00 o.oo oo o.. so o.so o.so o.so o.oo o.. oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo AVERAGE AOT FOR 19 RECORDS WAS

27 TABLE 19. LISTING OF INTERCHANGES IN ORDER BY CRITICAL RATE FACTOR (RURAL AREAS! co RT MP NO TOTAL NO OF ACC CRI TICAL CRITICAL ACCS INTERCHANGE RAMPS RATE RATE RATE VOLUME FACTOR ACC/ A CCI ACC/ RAMP ENT EXIT RAMP RAMP o. 74 lo o2 b 16992o00 b o.79 lo leoo loll ':Hol b b Oo a. n b Oo4l o.oo lo o.sa b o Oe39 o Oe o Oo69 Oo ll6a Oo b Oo l4o5 2 1: o00 4 Oa36 o ol Oo31 o e b o b Oo o boo o.za 't ZOoS o. 2 8 o. 74 o Oo74 o Oo o b o o Oo Oa o. 31 b o l85a Oo29 1.a 1 o o o00 4 Oo Oo Ool o Oo Oo Oo Ool4 o. 73 Oo19 b o o.n Oal o.t8 b o Oo lllo DolO a o.oo 1.10 o.oo a o.oo o.oo o.oo 2.33 o.oo a o.oo 2a33 o.oo a b o.oo 2.40 o.oo lob o6 a l7360o00 4 o.oo Oo78 o.oo lob o.oo o.8o o.oo e2 a o.oo 0.78 o.oo 1 Oo l6941o12 4 o.oo o.oo o o.oo a o.oo 0.90 o.oo a 8960o00 4 o.oo lo04 o.oo o.oo 1o02 o.oo b o0 a o.oo 1.20 o.oo a o.oo 1.21 o.oo ll o3 a o.oo loll o.oo lo4 a o.oo 1o10 o.oo a o.oo o.oo a o.oo 0 o'74 o.oo a o.oo 0.68 o.oo a o.oo 0.64 o.oo o o00 4 o.oo 0.87 o.oo a o.oo 0.87 o.oo a o.oo Oo89 o.oo o3 a o.oo 0.81 o.oo a o.oo 0.68 o.oo a o.oo Oo68 o.oo t.oo z.so lo3 3 lo 00 o.oo o.. oo 0.75 o.. so oo o.oo t.oo 1.50 o.so t.z s 1.00 lo o.oo lo2 5 o.so z.oo o.so o.so a. so 1.00 o.oo z.oo 0.75 o.oo o.oo z.oo o50 o.oo o.so 0.75 t.oo o.so o.so 0.50 o. 5 c o.so 0.oo 1a00 Oo o.oo 0.50 o.oo o.oo o.so 0.50 o.so o. 50 o.so 0.oo lo 00 o.so 1.00 o.oo o.so o.oo 1.00 o.so o.so o o.oo 1.00 Oo50 o.oo t.oc o.oo o. 2 5 o.oo o.so o. 2 5 o.oo 0.50 o o.oo 0.25 o.oo o.oo o o. 50 o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo 0.25 o.so o.oo Oo o.oo so o.oo 0.25 o.oo o.so o. 2 5 o.oo o.so 0.25 o.oo o.oo 0.25 o.oo o o.oo o oo lotlo 0.25 o.so o.oo Oo50 o.oo o.oo 0.50 o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oc o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o. 00 o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo 20

28 TABLE ZD. LISTING OF HIGH-ACC IDENT 1-MILE KM I SECTIONS IN ORDER BY ROUT E AND MILEPOSTS CRIT NO. ACC CRIT RATE co RT BMP EMP CLASS LENGTH ACCS AOT RATE RATE FACTOR RU o97 1., zo.s RU lo39 lu ,6 RU C a RU o.. aa RU o 15 0., ;7 RU Oe RU l le Ze9 RU le92 1o LU 1o o LU e4C 3.,19 le LU ! ,00 lo l3lo LU le98 2e8l 0., LU BOO CO 3.35 z.at LU l lo LU l.o ZoBl s 13.4 RU! le RU l l lo5l lo RU l. 4 7 le RU loo l.31!.30 l.ol 53o RU lo47 lo30 lel RU lo ! RU le27 lo29 0., RU lol3 l.! RU l !. 0 l lol e3 RU lol9 0., RU! lo !9 t.os o RU !.0! RU! lool loll a a.a 89.7 RU l.o lo 11 0., RU leo! l o il o RU l.o u48 1e B e MU ! llo.o no.. 9 MU l.o! MU l.o lo 27 lo uz.. a 1!2. 9 MU 1.0! e 2 3 l 28 0, Q e RU I lo49 1.!9 l RU l o19 Oo o9 RU l !.25 1o l45ol RU t... o lo04 1.! l54o RU! le19 lo 21 Oo MU 1.o lo 17 Oo ol MU I.!7 1., o MU lo e lo e , u l.o el MU e o MU l. 0! o 10 0, o5!83.4 MU l.o el LU l.o lo ao LU 1.0 6! e LU 1.0 lib 93!93 3e LU ! LU o 0.9 LU loo LU 1.o a3 lo LU e83! u.o LU loo LU o64 2o78! o LU l.o Za LU a79 l l !Sol LU! ao LU l !.79 2.so LU l z.. o

29 TABLE Zl. L IST.Ir-.G OF HIGH-ACCIDENT 0.3-MILE (483-M l SPOTS IN ORDER BY ROUTE AND MILEPOSTS CRIT NO. AC C CRIT RATE co RT BMP EMP CLASS LENGTH Aces ADT RATE RATE FACTOR e RU le ss.a RU Co66 le RU c.73 c RU c.6b s.s RU Oo c.. 64 t.os ol RU Oo DO e RU Q.b2 C.. 62 t.. oo RU o.ss RU Oo RU Oo l 90.3 RU e5 RU o.. s t c. s z o RU 0.3 t Oo6l c RU c. 52 l o9 98ol RU Oo4l o.. sz o4 RU o.. sz RU Oe6l o.sz 1 db e RU Oo4l c a RU o.st 0.?2 Oe d RU o.. s t Ce RU Oo3 t Oo6l o.sz RU LU lo 7 5 le a LU le l l27el LU bDCO le l.l LU z.. za t.. zz o LU loll uo.. s LU e e4B LU LU 0.3 aooco t ol LU Oe l z LU t.. l l 1.. a LU Oo68 lool RU o.at 0.10 l RU o.. a t c.1o o4 RU C RU o.. 9 a Co76 lo RU lo39 C o3 RU e2 RU Ce R U Oe64 Q., o RU c.63 l o3 24o5 RU l Oe64 Oo RU Oob1 C RU e RU Q , RU GO Oa 7'1 Oe6l RU GO Oo61 0., RU C l '-1 RU o.. as Oo6l 1e RU o.s9 Co6l RU l92co o.. 6o RU ,95 l b R U o Ce RU C RU '-153 o.. sz c.sa RU CO Oo 57 Oo54 le04 To RU c. 54 1o RU CO lo RU '12CO Q.45 Ce54 o.. a tn.. o th.. 2 RU ' & RU lo04 22

30 TABLE 21.!CONTINUED I CRIT NO ACC CRIT RATE co RT BMP EMP C LASS LENGTH ACCS AOT RATE RATE FACTOR RU '>5 o.so e RU 0.3 t o.. ss c.so RU o.so RU Q..!:l6 o.st ::1 u o.. s6 c. so ' u o.. sz c MU c I-1U 0.3 l lo56 c.. s s MU o.sz c.. s llbeo MU Co los RU l RU c. s' l RU 0, c.s4 lo a G RU o.sc 0.,56 c.as l d RU o.. s z c.. sa Oo9l 4l o4 RU Oo65 c.sa lel RU C e l 4l ' RU o.sz c l e RU 4l 4l 0.) c. 5 2 Oo e RU Oo47 Co RU Oo47 C. 55 0, e5 1'14 87 MU c l(J G C.4B 1o0l 'u ? C '76. 1 l_,u Oe48 C l 76.a MU 0.3 ll o.. 4 B I<U Ce J MU Oe38 Go44 0.6b o4 U30 o b 'u 0.3 B o.3a Co a 1 e J MU 0.3 l Oo44 lo d MU Go B l 1 MU o.2a Oo44 0 o MU B MU o.za e o'1 MU Co o LU C LU ) LU 0.3 l o e LU 0.3 7C c.9b e LU a. 7l C.9B o LU Oo82 C.98 O.A LU 0.3 Sl o38 C el LU l e 8 8 C LU lo82 C LU l C LU C.98 1o o.o 0.2 LU :] e 26 4.oo LU 0.3 l l o6 LC 0.3 l ol c g.. o '}.2 LU CO ol LU CO eo 10 2 LU e e LU e09 l. 02 L d LU 0.3 ll ? LU el l o LU Od o6d o LU 0.3 BO l LU l e QO l 7 e e 2 LU le o e2 LU lo6c e9 20d LU el LU o 02 2.,00 23

31 ' In addition to searching for high accident locations, the accident analysis also included a list of roadway elements which contributed to cause or severity. One method was to obtain general summaries of accident information as shown in Table 4. A particularly useful sunnnary was a printout by type of accident {first event) as shown in Table 22. This table enabled calculation of the average number of accidents per mile (1.6 km) for specific types of accidents. The critical number of accidents per mile (1.6 km) could then be calculated, and a printout of locations exceeding the critical number was obtained. An example of this type of analysis is given in Table 23 which contains a listing of locations with three or more accidents per mile (1.6 km) involving a rock cut, earth embankment, or ditch. The critical number of three was found; the total number of this type of accident (307) is shown in Table 22. Dividing by the total mileage gave an average of 0.47 accidents per mile (1.6 km). Using the formula and a level of significance of 0.995, a critical number of three accidents per mile ( 1.6 km) was selected. This type of analysis was used to identify other ha zardous locations. Sunnnary tables of the results of this type of analysis are shown in APPENDIX B. Critical numbers of accidents per mile (1.6 km) were determined by population group for all accidents, injury and fa tal accidents, accidents during darkness, and accidents on wet pavement. Also, a critical number of accidents per mile ( 1.6 km) involving guardrail was determined. Lists of locations where more than one accident had involved either a bridge, light support or pole, or a sign post were obtained. The data in Table 22 show that the most connnon types of fixed-object accidents involved either a guardrail (most connnon type), a rock cut, or earth embankment. Summary tables of some of the other results obtained from the analysis are given in APPENDIX G. TABLE 22. SUMMARY OF INTERSTATE ACCIDENTS BY TYPE OF ACCIDENT (FIRST EVENT ) TYPE OF ACCIDENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS Collision With Collision With Fixed Obj ect Non-Collision Other Motor Vehicle Pedestrian Bicyclist Animal Railroad Train Other Obj ect/not fixed Light Support - Utility Pole Guardrail Crash Cushion Sign Post Tree Building-wall Curbing Fence Bridge Structure Culvert - Head Wall Median Barrier Snow Embankment Earth Embankment-Rock cut-ditch Fire Hydrant Other Fixed Obj ect Overturned Fire-Explosion Submersion Ran off Roadway (only) Other 4, ll

32 TABLE 23. LOCATIONS WITH 3 OR MORE ACCIDENTS PER MILE (1. 6 km) INVOLVING A ROCK CUT OR EARTH EMBANKMENT NUMBER OF ROUTE MILEPOINT ACCIDENTS I o2-50o o I o o o o6 5 96o9-97o o o o o I o1 3 12o I o o1-56o o6-96o o I 264 OoO o

33 A separate, 4-year ( ) analysis was made of fatal accidents. All of the fatal accidents were placed into one general category. The largest number involved collision with another motor vehicle; second most numerous were collisions with fixed objects (Table 24). In the order of frequency, the fixed objects were guardrails, bridges, and rock cuts (Table 25). Each fatal accident was also placed into a detailed category (Table 26). Data from these tables indicated general types of improvements which could be made to reduce the number of fatal accidents. For example, there were 20 fatal accidents involving a wrong-way, headm0n collision. This indicated a need to prevent wrong-way entrance onto the roadway. Other areas needing safety improvements were revealed by the number of fatal accidents involving rock cuts (13) and blunt guardrail ends (7). Tables summarizing fatal accidents are in APPENDIX C. An investigation of seatbelt usage disclosed only 4.2 percent of the persons fatally injured were wearing a seatbelt. This low percentage was contributive partially to the fact that 36 percent of the fatalities involved ejection from the vehicle. TABLE 24. GENERAL ACCIDENT DESCRIPTION OF FATAL ACCIDENTS DESCRIPTION Other Motor Vehicle Pede strian Ran-off-road (no Collision) F ixed Obj ect (all) Bridge Guardrail Rock Cut Sign Earth Embankment Other NUMBER PERCENT OF TOTAL TABLE 25. TYPES OF FIXED OBJECTS MOST FREQUENTLY INVOLVED IN FATAL ACCIDENTS FIXED OBJECT Guardrail Bridge Rock Cut Sign Earth Embankment Other PERCENT FATAL ACCIDENTS

34 TABLE 26. DETAILED ACCIDENT DESCRIPTION OF FATAL ACCIDENTS DESCRIPTION Wrong Way Head-on Run-off-road (no collision) Pedestrian (not driver or passenger of another mo tor vehicle) Workman Pedestrian (driver or passenger of other motor vehicle) Pedestrian -- Disabled Vehicle Pedestrian -- Previous Accident Pedestrians (total) Involving Median Crossover Motorcycle Lost Control Hit Guardrail (general ) Blunt Guardrail End Punctured Vehicle Hit Buried Guardrail End and Overturned Jump ed Guardrail Went Through Guardrail Hit Guardrail and Overturned Jumped Over Buried Guardrail End Guardrail-Related (total) Cross Median Head-on Rear End (general ) Slow Moving Truck Lane Change Traffic Backed Up -- Congestion Disabled Vehicle Previous Accident Vehicle on Emergency Strip Rear End (total ) Hit Bridge Pier Hit Bridge Abutment Through Bridge Railing Icy Bridge Gap Between Parallel Bridge Rebounded off Bridge Railing Bridge-Related (total ) Other Fixed Obj ect (general) Culvert Sign Rock Cut Light Pole Earth Embankment Fixed Obj ect (total) Sideswipe (general) Passing Merging from Entrance Ramp Sideswipe (total) U-Turn (no crossover) NUMBER PERCENT OF TOTAL

35 Other summaries of available information with respect to population are shown in Table 27. It shows that the percentage of collisions with other vehlcles was much higher in the high-volume, large urban areas; whereas the percentage of fixed object and single vehlcle accidents was much higher in the low-volume, rural areas. Accident rates were calculated for interstate segments in each county (Table 28). The highest accident rates were for I 65 and I 264 in Jefferson County and I 75 in Kenton County, A comparison of accident data on bridges with and without full width shoulders (Table 29) showed that bridges with full width shoulders had an 18 percent lower accident rate and 51 percent fewer accidents per bridge compared to bridges without full width shoulders. All interchanges were classified into one of 13 categories (Figure 1). The rates (Table 30) tended to be hlgher for the higher volume interchange types. The lowest rates were for interchanges consisting of entrance or exit ramps only and for a T or trumpet type interchange. Comparisons were based on adequacy ratings. It was shown that bridges with a hlgher number of points had lower accident rates (Table 31). TABLE 27. TYPE OF ACCIDENTS IN DIFFERENT POPULATION GROUPS PERCENT OF ALL ACCIDENTS POPULATION GROUP TYPE OF ACCIDENT RURAL SMALL URBAN LARGE URBAN TOTAL Collision (not with fixed obj ect) Collision with fixed obj ect Non- collision

36 TABLE 28. ACCIDENT RATE BY ROUTE AND COUNTY ACCIDENT RATE* COUNTY I 24 I 64 I 65 I 71 I 75 I 261+ Christian McCracken Bath Boyd Carter Clark Fayette Franklin Jefferson Montgomery Rowen Scott Shelby Woodford Barren Bull itt Edmonson Hardin Hart Jefferson Larue Simpson Warren Boone Carroll Galli tin Henry Jefferson Oldham Trimb le Boone Fayette Grant Kenton Laurel Madison Rockcastle Scott Whitley Jefferson }; Accidents per 100 million vehicle-miles (160 million vehicle-kilometers) 29

37 0 TABLE 29. COMPARISON OF ACCIDENT DATA ON BRIDGES WITH AND WITHOUT FULL-WIDTH SHOULDERS PERCENT ACCIDENT RATE PERCENT REDUCTION LOCATION SHOULDER NUMBER OF NUMBER OF EXPOSURE (ACC/MVM) REDUCTION ACCIDENTS (ACCIDENTS TYPE TYPE BRIDGES ACCIDENTS (MVM) (1.6 MVK) (ACCIDENT RATE ) PER BRIDGE PER BRIDGE) All Not full width 160 4ll Full width ll Rural 74 Not full width Full Width Semi- Not full width Urban Full width Urban Not full width Full width 57 ll

38 TABLE 30. ACCIDENTS ASSOCIATED WITH TYPES OF INTERCHANGES TOTAL ACCIDENTS NUMBER BY TYPE OF R.Al'1P OF RAJ:viP S TOTAL TOTAL RAMP RATE b TYPE OF TOTAL ENTRANCE EXIT VOLUME ACCIDENT INTERCHANGE NUMBER ENTRANCE EXIT ACCIDENTS RAMPS RAMPS (AADT) RATE a ENTRANCE EXIT TOTAL VOUJHE (AADT) PER INTERCHANGE T or trumpet , y , Partial Cloverleaf (A) , Cloverleaf ,061, so Diamond ,856, Partial Diamond ,187, Directional , Partial Cloverleaf (B) , Partial Cloverleaf (C) ' Partial Cloverleaf {D) , Entrance or Exit Ramps Only Other , Partial Cloverleaf , (All Types) Total ,200, , , , , , ' , ' , , , , , , ,383 a b Accidents per 100 million vehicle-miles (160 million vehicle-kilometers) Accidents per ramp TABLE 31. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ADEQUACY RATING AND ACCIDENT RATES FOR BRIDGES ACCIDENT RATE'' POPULATION GROUP ADEQUACY RATING LARGE URBAN MEDIUM URBAN RURAL TOTAL Below '... '( Accidents per 100 million vehicle-miles (160 million vehicle kilometers )

39 Figure l. Type of Interchanges. PARTIAL CLOVERLEAF RAMPS IN TWO QUADRANTS IAI PARTIAL CLOVERLEAF ICI PARTIAL CLOVERLEAF I Bl PART IAL CCOVERLEAF I Dl 32

40 Figure 1. Type o f Interchanges. T OR TRUMPET CLOVERLEAF PARTIAL DIAMOND y 33

41 FIELD INVENTORY A summary of the number of each type of guardrail end-treatments is given in Table 32. The majority of existing guardrail beginnings were buried {85 percent). Some guardrails have been upgraded to breakaway cable terminal {I I percent); a few blunt end-treatments remain ( 4 percent). A listing of the types of protectors at median and shoulder piers is given in Table 33. For the median pier, the most common type of protector was a guardrail {69 percent). The other common type of vehicle protector was the earth mound (23 percent). A few piers were equipped with crash cushions {2 percent), and some provided no protection (6 percent). For the shoulder pier, guardrail was the only protective device. In some cases, the pier had been placed over 30 feet {9 m) from the roadway {9 percent). Also, a few of the shoulder piers were unequipped (5 percent). The Watterson Expressway (I 264) had the largest percentage of unequipped piers. A summary of the bridge inventory data is given in Table 34. Altogether, 290 btidges were inventoried. It was found that 75 percent of the bridges had a curb. This feature has been eliminated in current standards. Slightly less than one-half on the bridges had a full-width shoulder ( 43 percent). The predominant method of protecting vechicles at the median gap between the bridges was guardrail (78 percent). There were various arrangements of guardrails. Some of the older installations provided very little protection. hi addition to guardrail, a few installations had shrubs which provided increased protection. Some bridges were at locations where a median barrier was present. In a very few instances on I 264Jilo protection was provided. For over one-half of the bridges (60 percent), all of the safety features were rated as good. The safety features consisted of the bridge rail and guardrail transition and end treatment. A summary of other roadway features inventoried is given in Table 35. Rigid signs and light poles totaled 544; 78 percent were on I 264. Only 20 percent of the gore areas were found to be free of obstructions. The most common feature was an exit sign. Many of these signs were supported by channel posts placed back-to-back and which have been classified as not breakaway. Approximately 70 miles (113 km) of rock cuts closer than 30 feet (9 m) to the pavement were found. The largest number of rock cuts were on I 75 and I 64. Crossovers were identified as those which were designed and those which had been created by frequent traversing. A total of 290 crossovers was located; 29 percent were not designed. Scale drawings showing the locations of all median crossovers are given in APPEN DIX E. The drawings also give the location of all interchan-ges and county lines. TABLE 32. SUMMARY OF NUMBER S OF DIFFERENT GUARDRAIL-END TREATMENTS a GUARDRAIL-END TREATMENT I 24 I 64 I 65 I 71 I 75 I 264 I 275 TOTAL Buried 27 1, , ,470 Breakaway Blunt a Inc ludes guardrail used as protection for fills, bridge piers, bridge rails, and gaps between bridges 34

42 TABLE 33. SUMMARY OF MEDIAN AND SHOULDER PIER PROTECTION PROTECTION I 24 I 64 I 65 I 71 I 75 I 264 I 275 TOTAL Median Guardrail Pier Earth Mound Crash Cushion 0 l l 0 6 None Shoulder Guardrail Pier Unprotected Over 30 feet (9m) from roadway TABLE 34. SUMMARY OF INTERSTATE BRIDGE INVENTORY DATA DATA ITEM I 24 I 64 I 65 I 7l I 75 I 264 I 275 TOTAL Number of Bridges Curb Yes No Shoulder Width Full Width Not Full Width Median Gap Guardrail Protection Guardrail and Shrubs Median Barrier None Safety Features all Good TABLE 35. S UMMARY OF VARIOUS OTHER ROADWAY FEATURES INVENTORIED DATA ITEM I 24 I 64 I 65 I 7l I 75 I 264 I 275 TOTAL Rigid Sign Supports Rigid Lightpole Supports Gore Area Exit Sign Features Light Pole Sign and Pole Guardrail Multiple Features Clear Crash Cushion Rock Cuts Within 30 Feet (9 m) of Roadway (Length) (Miles) Median Designed Crossovers Other

43 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS After an in-depth inventory and accident analysis, a number of improvements are recommended. These are classified as related to 0.3-mile (0.48-km) spots,!-mile (1.6-km) sections, bridges, or interchanges. The types of improvements are based partly on guidelines for interstate safety upgrading which were distributed in 1978 by the Federal Highway Administration as the Types of Highway Safety Improvement Work To Be Included in the 1979 Interstate Cost Estimate. This listing includes 29 general improvement types (Table 36). Priority listings were made of all hazardous spots, sections, bridges, and interchanges; these were based on critical rate factors, as explained earlier. Locations with abnormally high accident experiences were investigated in the field to determine geometric deficiencies. For 0.3-mile (0.48-km) spots, recommendations are offered for 20 locations shown in Table 37. Most of the improvements involve variable message signs to provide advance warning to drivers. There are 12 interchanges where preliminary recommendations (Table 38) include ramp metering, gore improvements, transverse striping, and addition of acceleration lanes. Of the 51 bridges in the listing (Table 39), no improvements are needed for 15. Delineation, variable message signs, widening, and ice warning signs are recommended. In addition to improvements at specific high accident sites, improvements are needed to upgrade substandard highway features. Based on the inventory of substandard features, a listing of safety bnprovements was made for each route as shown in Table 40. The unit costs for each impr vement are given also. A combined list of proposed safety improvements was developed for (1) high-accident spots, (2) high-accident sections, (3) highaccident bridges, ( 4) high.accident interchanges, (5) substandard geometric features, (6) low adequacy rating (bridges only), and (7) unusually slippery pavements. The listing is shown in Table 41 and includes 58 projects. Some projects consist of several hundred individual sites. The information given for each bnprovement type in Table 41 includes improvement description, number of installations, accident history (annual), percentage accident reduction, improvement costs, maintenance costs, average annual benefits, references, benefit cost ratio, and service life of improvements. The expected percentage reductions in accidents were determined based on one or more of the 42 references. Benefit cost ratios range from near 0 to about 44. The percentage accident reductions are given separately for fatal, injury, and property damage accidents. Some improvements will reduce severity but not affect number of accidents. In such cases, total accidents remain unchanged, but injury and fatal accidents are reduced. 'Thus, the number of property-damage accidents show a negative percentage reduction because some injury and fatal accidents are expected to lessen to property-damage accidents after improvements are made. Improvement costs were taken primarily from average unit bid prices for all projects awarded by the Kentucky Department of Transportation in 1977 (18). Service lives and annual maintenance costs were also selected for each project based on Information contained in other sources (9 ). The total cost for all proposed projects was over $27 million as shown in Table 42. Of that total, nearly $20 million in expenditures would result in a benefit-cost ratio of more than 1.0. All of the general improvements would pay for themselves (B-C ratios of 1.0 or higher). Almost all of the ramp bnprovements would have B-C ratios of 1.0 or higher while less than half of the de-slicking, bridge widening, and spot improvement projects would pay for themselves. 36

44 TABLE 36. TYPES OF HI GHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT WORK TO BE INCLUDED ON TABLE B, BOTTOM HAL LINE 12 OF 1979 INTERSTATE COST ESTIMATE (NUMBERED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY) f Eliminate unnecessary signs. Pl;ace signs on otherwis e required structures such as bridges, lighting poles, and other sign supports. Relocate signs laterally 30 feet or more from the pavement edge. Relocate signs longitudinally where they cannot be hit, such as behind otherwise required guardrail. Convert supports to breakaway design. Convert existing overhead supports to ground-mount breakaway design when feasible. Provide protective guardrail around overhea<il sign supports. Relocate lighting supports from highly vulnerable locations such as gores. Convert lighting supports to breakaway design. Eliminate unnecessary median U- turn openings. Eliminate small rock outcrops and boulders in an otherwise clear area along the roadside. Round ditches. Flatten ditch dikes and median U-turn openings. Flatten and regrade slopes in gores and around adj us ted drainage st:rmctures. Regrade slopes in median or on side to permit the elimination of short sections of guardrail. Remove gore curb. Relocate minor drainage headwalls to the edge of clear roadside area. Convert catch basins and headwa*ls to a design that allows vehi cles to safely pass over. Provide guardrail along large drainage structures. Eliminate unwarranted guardrail. Add additional guardrail or median barrie:r: posts and blackouts or otherwise upgrade the existing rail to one of acceptable modern standard. Replace a guardrail that deflects a lateral distance greater than the space avai lable. Anchor guardaril terminals and adjust them to reduce chance of impalement. Strengthen guardrail in advance of and rigidly attach it to bridge parapets and walls. Upgrade hazardously substandard bridge rail. Ins tall guardrail and median barrier along bridge piers, at overhead sign supports, or in narrow medians. Place energy absorption barriers in gores where large fixed obj ects cannot be relocated. Provide skid resistant overlays and pavement grooving. Imp lement other less frequent typ es of safety work : add glare screens ; add rail screens on pedestrian bridges; up date signing and lighting at interchange s; revise striping at ramp terminals ; lengthen speed-change lanes ; correct lane drops by signing and/or other minor work. 37

45 TABLE 3 7. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS, HIGH-ACCIDENT SITES (0.3-MILE (0.48-km) SECTIONS )) NUMBER OF COUNTY ROUTE MILEPOST ACCIDENTS RECOMMENDATIONS Jefferson I Variable Me ssage Sign Jefferson I Variable Message Sign Jefferson I Variable Messgge Sign Fayette 1! (Planned Reconstruction) Jefferson I Variable Message Sign Kenton I Variable Mes sage Sign Jefferson I Variable Message Sign Kenton I Variable Message Sign Jefferson I Variable Message Sign Jefferson I Variable Me ssage Sign Kenton I Variable Me ssage Sign Jefferson I.I \Planned Reconstruction) Gallatin I NIR* Kenton I Variable Mes sage Sign Kenton I Variable Mes sage Sign Jefferson I so Variable Message Sign Jefferson I Variable Message Sign Madison I NIR Jefferson I Variable Me ssage Sign Jefferson I Variable Message Sign *NIR -- No imp rovement recommended. TABLE 38. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS, HIGH-ACCIDENT INTERCHANGES NUMBER OF COUNTY ROUTE MILEPOST ACCIDENTS RECOMMENDATIONS Jefferson I Transverse Stripes (Exit Ramps) Boone I NIR* Jefferson I Increase Length of Acceleration Lane Boone I Transverse Stripes (Exit Ramps) Jefferson I Ramp Improvements Acceleration Lanes Jefferson I NIR (Cross-Street Accidents ) Warren I NIR Clark I Gore Improvements Jefferson I Gore Imp rovements Jefferson I Ramp Metering Boone I Transvers Stripes Franklin I (Exit Ramps) NIR 38 * NIR -- No improvements recommended.

46 TABLE 39. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS, HIGH-ACCIDENT BRIDGES NUMBER OF COUNTY ROUTE MILEPOST BRIDGE OVER ACCIDENTS RECOMMENDATIONS Jefferson I Taylor Blvd. 10 Widen Kenton I Ohio River 98 Variable message sign Kenton I th Street 16 Widen Boyd I KY Delineation Jefferson I Grade Lane 8 Widen Jefferson I Bardstown Road 7 NIR* Whitley-Laurel I Lyn Camp 8 Delineation Jefferson I Cane Run Road 4 NIR Jefferson I Taylorsville Road 10 NIR Jefferson I Zorn Avenue 7 Widen Boyd I KY 3 RR 4 Delineation Hardin I Colel!mrg Road 4 Widen Jefferson I Walnut Street 5 Widen Kenton I KY ll20 24 Widen Jeffer9 0n I Virginia Avenue 4 NIR \ Simpson I 65 L & N RR 4 NIR Clark I Stoner Creek 3 Delineation Boone I KY Widen Jefferson I Story Avenue 13 Widen Fayette I Clays Ferry 15 Delineation, ice on KY. River bridge warning sign Jefferson I Tucker Station Road 3 Delineation Jefferson I Standiford Lane 4 Widen Jefferson I Market Street 2 NIR Jefferson I Ralph Avenue 2 NIR Boyd I Big Run - KY Delineation Barren I us 3lW 3 NIR Fayette I Royster Road 2 Delineation Jefferson I L & N RR 6 Widen Madison I Silver Creek 4 Delineation Jefferson I 264 Bells Lane 2 NIR Jefferson I 264 ll.1l Crittenden Drive 5 Widen scott I Big Eagle Creek 4 Delineation Jefferson I Kennedy Bridge 46 Variable message sign Laurel I 30.5 Laurel River 4 DEdineation, ice on bridge sign Carter I Tygarts Creek 2 Delineation Rowan I Bratton Branch 2 Delineation Carter I Little Sandy River 2 NIR Jefferson I Chestnut Street 9 NIR Rowan I Bull Fork 2 Delineation Jefferson I Eastern Parkway 6 Widen Henry I 7l 32.3 L & N RR 3 Delineation, ice on bridge sign Warren I KY NIR Fayette I 75 ll2. 8 us 27 5 Delineation Madison I KY Delineation Jefferson I us 60 4 NIR Fayette I 75 ll0.8 I 64 3 Delineation Boone I KY (Under construction) Jefferson I I 7l 5 Widen Barren I KY NIR Jefferson I Louisville Avenue 10 NIR Jefferson I Bradley Street 4 Widen *NIR -- No improvements recommended. 39

47 TABLE 40. NUMBER AND TYPE OF IMPROVEMENTS BY ROUTE SAFETY UNIT IMPROVEMENT I 24 I 64 I 65 I 71 I 75 I 264 I 275 COST Clear Gore Area: Remove rigid signs $1,000 Move light standard $2 500 Replace dual channel post b 500 Remove guardrail $1,000 Replace end treatment $1,000 f, Replace Rigid Signs $2,000 Replace Rigid Lightpoles $2,000 Rock Cuts : Grading and/or shielding $70, 400 (Miles of rock cuts) per mile Median Crossover Removal $3,500 Delineation for wrongway accidents $400 Convert guardrail end treatments to breakaway Cable terminal $500 Guardrail transition to bridge end $8,000 Median and shoulder pier!)'rotection: Shoulder pier unprotected $5,000 b b Median pier rotected $40,000 $20,000 Guardrail at unb s oulder $1,000 Pier unattached Delineation for Shoulders approaching $100 bridges without full-width Shoulders Upgrade Gap Between. bridges : Upgrade guardrail $10,000 cp lant shrubs behind $7,000 guardrail Fasten Seat Belts Signs at All entrance Ramps $200 {a) Earth berms on both sides of bridge pier {b) Crash cushions on both sides of bridge pier 40

48 It E'll- dll 'I'>) 6'61 djj ' ls I 9'>1 dw '!'>I S'[l dw 1(21 2'01 drl 1 (',.) S'L dh --.,92 I \ S Z Of 101 Sl- 192' I ooo oo 19 lbl) '! Till dh 11 1 L'O l dw -- SL I Hll '9 dw -- S9 I!Ill 6''>1 dw -- '>9 1 ISdWY'd 11)(31 Nidl\!15 3S\!3 SN'I'lH H 'l 'bz H'L! 82 'LZ 101 OH' l t ooo su I I L I SObl dh ISL l NI'd313H dwy'd zr '62' zs 82' 'LZ 001 HH0' 1 I ooo t t ' '061 dw ISL I 9NI'd313W dh'i''d ( 'l 62' 6L 'I Bl 'LZ '>1 t ol'lo z ' 1 11' 111 dh ISL I 9NI'd3i3W dwvlj 'ZE 6'2'01 dw 0 '?01 dw 10''> bl 'Ill '01 Ob\06 2' ' OOO'SI ' g9 I SN9JS 11X3 U3l OS'\ l 192' 'Sl '>Z zz ot 96Z''> ' ' 000 0'> I ' ' ' ' 1('55 dwi lemtll 1)1 1'>9 I N'JI5 3'JO!l:ll'l NO zr '9< sz.,, zz o1 82'1'6 s ' 000'0'> t ' ' ' 15'0 dlol1 3 I 131:!0'1'1 l L I N')IS 3':10 11:111 NO 3)1 ZS' Z 09l '52'.,, zz 'Dl '>99't. s ' 000'0'> s ' ' ' 1 '2 rl l l:! N I 1!H I N'JIS 3'l0Il:!ll NO 0111 z '9Z sz I 'L6 d1h Al:!l:!H SAV11 2L '.,2 zz o1 oo2 o1 ' ' 000'0'> I ' ' ' ' l L I N':IIS 3'10llHI NO OL 'I 'OJ 11>1' ' I 000'9021 H 191 0'2 dloll ''>'ll I!l:!31l:!l:!VII NVI03 NO lsod3l:!v1'l I0'> 1! tz oz o1 GLS'21 ' 005'1 f ooo nn s IOI 1 9 L'OU rl l 59 I!l:!3Il:!'tffll 'IVI03W NO HOd3'tl'fl'l BPS 12 '02 '01 LSI'OS I ooo z s ooo nn H 1'>0 ll ISHT 5'191 dil l H I /lj3l'tl'<ivii NVI03W rm SlSOd3l:!V.1') I lh ll:! OIHO 1:!3 0 se o 12 oz 'Ol 10'2 ' ' ooo oo ' 3'l0Il:!ll lli' Sl:!3ll:!l:!VII N'fl03iol NO S1S0d3l:!Vl'l 'l 9!' 61 'BI ' O I 91L'L 000' Wl!S :HH -Wii'l:!'JVIO!113 ll I - '>9 I '!S Ol:! 01 dllli'l:! 1'f lis S<;J I 13H NV1 NOH'fl:! -313JJ'f ON3H l I -'><;1 I 0.1. lin S<;J I iojol:! dwyl:! a zt 'Ll 96' '01 265'51 f L I 12! 31-ll IHHI e3 ll l -.,9 I 01 lis 59 I 1<101:! 3'HI3V!q SLO t 12 'f< '>1 ' '5 'I 000' 091 :l:!3hil:!vii Nli'I03W :s1nm1jah ooo tou I 000'90LI 01- ' >! !133 00'> 1[11 O't 1 zn Ml '59 1 :l:!3tl:!l:!'l'& NVl03 ON!l:!301rlOHSl Sl00 OH'f - )0111 l!vl:!ol:!vn'l 11:!0-IH* ae o EE 02 H 'll '0 'I ooa a9'>1 :l:!3il:!l:!vii Nli'I03H 00019H :SinQ)I)Qlll I 0001'>051 Ol- ' n 1'>11 6!133 oo ot l o n - O dh ''>9l I li3 Illl!'f9 NVI03W ONV 'll:!301r10hs OO<'l -)1:)0111 l!yl:!ol:!vrl!l 1 0-IH 09'I 'l 2 ''>I ' 1 ll 'H 001 I9L' H $ <Sl()Q)IJOlll : Y311-31l:!IH ooo 1 ooo oall 01- ' Ll! +,! l II OOO'f 9'I6T - 0'9111 lin SL I Sln0)1')0111 liviiol:!'fn'l ll:!o-lh ON'f l!yl:!ol:!vn!l H'l'311-31lll<ll SlN3H3 0l:!dWI lods I S'd'I'H I 3!1 DllV'd 150) > )N3l:!3 3l:! S11 3N31l lynnn 3!1Vl:!3 V SlSOJ 3')N'I'N3lNIVH wmmv SlSOJ 1N3H3110 d l DOd A nrni luv N0!1JnG3H 1N3J'Il3d OOrl,. AllnrNI l'flv Alll:!3BS 1N301J')V l:!3s nn H/3H3AOl:!dWI,JO NO!l'I':Kll ON'f 3d.U SlN3W3AOMdW I Al3 YS 03SOd0Md 1'7 319\1 l

49 TABLE 41. I CONTINUED I ACCIDENT S VERITY TYPE AND LOCATION OF IMPROVEMENT NUMBER FA TAL INJURY a POD PERCE T REDUCT!ON ANNUAL AVERAGE IlENE FIT MA!NTH!ANCE ANNUAL COST LIFE FA TAL INJURY ' IMPROVEMENT COSTS COSTS BENEFITS REFERENCES RATIO! YEARS l GENERAL IMPROVEMENTS CLCAR GORE AREA; 0 1 REMOVE RIGID SIGNS ' ' MOVE LIGHT S T ANOARO REPLACE DUAL CHM'lNEL POST REMOVE GUARDRAIL REPLACE TREATMENT ' ;o $3S0o000 $ 79o REPLACE RIGID SIGNS lib) ;o -;o $!88,000 s 34, REPLACE RIGID LIGHT DLES )bb I _, s oo,ooo H4lo499 ' 2.31 ' ' REMOVE ROCK CUTS 17G MILES I MOVING BACK FEET AVERAGE OF FEET HIGH l) ' ss,aoc,ooo S40 l o 52 7,, 1.21 ' VARIABLE MESSAGE SIGNS ' 75; 186t9 - l'h ' ' sns,ooo 9,000 89,34 1 ' 5o 59 VARIABLE MESSAGE SIGNS '!75 I ' ' ' ' $250,000 ua,ooa ' ' 65; ' uo. 7 - l31d VARIABLE MESSAGE SIGNS ' 264 MP.o - \B,Q ' l('l8! l731,00 ' ' ' 1450,000 us,ooa $!05o430 ' 3,14 ' MEDIAN CROSSOVER REMOVAL 1261 ' ' ' nas,ovo H28 o6 25 ' ' 5.04 ' DELINEATION FOR 1</R GNG- ' ACCIDENTS m I Lll ' ' ' U 3B o024 '. z. 76 ;o, VLJARORA I l ENO TREAT/'!ENTS TO BREAKAWAY CABLE TERMINAL B I ' ' -.0 Ho650o000 S3!0o400 ' ' 2.84 ' ' GLJARORA I L TRANSITION w BRIDGE 11D2 BRIDGES! IHJ ' _, Hi!oOOO $166oll3 '... ' 3.07 ' ',, MEDIAN ' SHDUUlER PIER PROTECTION SHOLJLOER PIER ' ' s6oo,ooa $266,100 ' 6.69 ' UNPROTECTED -- ' MEDIA!' PIER UNPROT C TED -- GUARORA I L SHOULDtR PIER UNATTACHED -- ;o OHII-IEATION FOR SHOULDERS APPRQA(HlNG BRIDGES WITH- 154) $51,000 $ 21 o7bb ' '..!.96 OUT full-wiotk SKOULOERS UPGRADE GAP BET\IEE/; BRIDGES - INCLUDES UPGRADING GUARDRA!ll461 '' ' oc u. oo,ooo U27o410 ' ' 1.01 ' AND PLANTING SHRUBS t<ehind GU RD A I l I 23! FASTEN SEAT BELT SIGNS AT ALL ENTRANCE RAMPS m $70t00D $235,000 ' ' j 42

50 {if' IS<i H 3JN lhn3 3ND ONII llx'3 3NO) OJ NDSli3H3r ZS'l Ill 'Ol '6 HO' 0 ' ooo o ' ' ' 0 ' Nl 9''> dw lv '>9 I ldrlll 3JN'f'l!HB 3NO ONY dhh 11X3 NOJ IOJ 'IOHHll Nl 2'161 dtll Z'2 Ill '01 'I> 511(1 L 0 ooo os' ' ' ' 0 ' ls HlS ONV HH 1Y Sl 1!'>'1 91 ' '> ISdW'I'll 3JNVlUN3 OM! I (OJ '101N3ll NI '>9lll doll f ' 1_2 1 ' 0 ' nid l!lhhi31hl!! 1Y H I IOJ NOHHl! Nl 9! o 1!1 '01 6 5( f ' ' 0 ' 1!'(91 dwi 9H All H' 5! I ISdWYll 1IX3 >: JlOJ 3NOOS NI 0]'0 Ill ' 0 ooo su ' ' 0 0 ' ll'oiil dwi!ll Sn 1'1' 51 I I Sd\H'l:l 3JN11llll'l3 '>) 10'111 d'll 3!1/Vl 9! '0 Ill '01 '6 5(0 5 0 ooo oou ' 0 ' 3'l0IliNiliJ3lll! lv '>92 ' ' 1 ISdr!Yl:l 3JNYl:l1tl3 EJ '>'Z Ill '01 6 seo n ' 0 ooo en ' ' ' 0 ' 15'! dwi Ml( Sfl lv '>'IZ I :')NlOVl:l'l llflohidj l:ioniw IHIM SdHYll NO S31JUSGO 301SOVOll 3 01H'd lt'zllonflo'ihhflds 59 I Dl ONfl091SV3 '>92 I 110'11 I ONflOGHl'dON <10 N30N3llHI) 01 '>92 I '!B' S3M 15 ONZ 01 '>9Z I '!E'bl DNnD\IfllOOS OA19 ljola'i'l 01 '>9l I!SHH 3 0lldHI (1'1 01 'b 6B'bS f Bf let f a 0 ' dhv'd 1 IH '>'IZ I!B''>l idnnoiuslm '>'IZ I 01 0'11 NM01SOlJV8 '19''>1 1 ONnD91S3M '>'1Z I 01 0'11 ')ljniim3n '! 'El l mmobls 3M l,qz I 01 Oll 'dvldod 'IB'Ol ionndb1sl3 '>9l I 01 Slfl N'd3fl100S Hi'> 01l'01JONODB1SV3 '>9l I 01 AVI1 ljvd N'd3HinOS 'IE'6 I ONn0!11SV3 '>9l I 01 O lb '!lola V 1! S1N3H3110'ddfl l Ill'! 01 6 QL'i0LB f 0 > ooa ooz t'!611 Zl 0 ' dhv'd 3JNV\f1N3 ':>9Z I S1N3>13110'ddi.U dhv\1 ISliHAI OI1V'd S3JN3ll3 3ll SiL:I3N3B 5150) SlSOJ 1N3W3AOlldHl ' AllnrNI lv!vo:l OOd AHnrNJ 1 1 V:l 113\IWnN 1N31H OlldWl :10 NOilVJ1J1 ONV 3dAl 3o:ll l!so') 1VnNNV 3JNYN31NIVH -ll:i3n39 39Vli3 V 1YnN Y N01 1J003ll 1N3')'d3d A1Ili3113S 1N3QI')JV I 03nNUNOJI I '? 318\1'1

51 TABLE 41.!CONTINUED! ACCIDENT SEVERITY PERCEH REDUCTION ANNUAL AVERAGE BENEFIT- MAINTENANCE ANNUAL cost TYPE ANI) LIFE LOCATION OF!MPROV MOIT NUMBER FA TAL INJURY ' FATAL INJURY ' IMPROVEMENT COSTS COSTS BENEFHS. REFERENCES RHIO 1 YEARS I - BRIDGE WIDENING BRIDGE WIDENING ' 75; (16) Sl,762oDOO Hl9o875 ' [, '' 162.5). ' ' CRESENT SPRINGS( I, SOUTHERr-1 RRl , BEECHWOOD I 181>.4 J 8 GRCI-1ARO ll86o il8 RlVAROi lbbo3)o ll20ll 0.61, PIKE ( 19Q,7) I ST!i9l OJ, 6l l'h,2! BRIDGE \IIDENING ' 65; ' 114) Ho253o000 HOSollS.. 1.2< ' ' N flr il27,bit GRADE LANE! l29,81t STANDIFORD I 130.\1, EASTERN PKWY ( 132o9ft BRADLEY STREET , I<ALNLIT 1135o8Jo COLEBURGI 100.4! BRIDGE!DEN lng ' 264; I ltd ' i65l,ooo $ 47,650.. Q,B4 TAYLORI'I,21o CRITTENDEN ' I ll.o I. ' ' STORYib.3 1, ' H RAMP ISoOio ' ' lorn ilo71 BRIDGE \I!OEN!NG ' 65; ' o2b2o t295 ' o.tb ' 2b4(l30.71t PHILLIPS ' ' I 13!.2 I, BRAOLEY I132.21t CR ITT ENOEN I 132.b I, I l32.b I, WARNOCKI13Jollo BlJRRNETI WOOD BIN ll34ollo ORMSBY ilh llo OAKI \34,51 o ST CATHERINE I l34obl t CALDWELLI L34. 1o BRECKINRI OGE I 135, l I o B OAOWA Yl l3 S, 3 I o FLOYD I l3so81, LIBERTY I!)5,9Jo PRtSTONi llb.oi, Jf.FFER SON ll3bo l)' MARKET(!36o2) ijrjoge JOENINI:> ' 26<t; ' S ' boo<to.. ',. o. 15 SOUTHERN PK Y(lO,Iio ' '.,, ' ST! 10.21, SOUTKERN I l3,q I, BEARGRASSI!5,11 TABLE 4le I CONTINUED l ACCIDENT SEVERITY percent REDUCTION ANNUAL AVERAGE BENEFIT- FA TAL INJURY ' FA TAL INJURY ' COSTS BENEFITS RATIO INTENANCE ANNUAL COST. A LIFE TVPE ' LOCATION OF IMPROVEMENT NUMBER JMPROVE ENT COSTS REFERENCES!YEARS) DE-SLICKING PROJECTS ' JEFFERSON CO ' ' 182) ' HB6,lb0 Hl9o244,, ' 2, ' 75 KENTON CO ' ( l3) H6o000 ' 6o282 '. ' ' 1, lol ' bs JtFfERSON CO,. ' 1181 ' $Jlo360 ' 16ol07 '.. ' 2.36 ' ' ' KENTON CO ' ' S30,240 4o980 '.. ' o.7o ' l ' ' JEFFERSON CO ' '!MI ' S891bOO $ 25o6l2 '... ' 1,31 MP 8. - \2.2 ' b't JEFFERSON CO o.' ' 516,800 ' ' ' ' 0,26 ee ' FA VETTE ' ' ' ' sn, 920 ' 2 o530 7 '.. ' Q,1b ' ' SCOTT-GRANT Cli ' ' ' o4 ' $91' 840 ' 2,631,,.. ' 0,13 ' GRANT CO '. ' '!38,080 1 o450 ' ' ' o. 1a ' ' 65 HART (0,, ' ' Sb0o480 1 o71l '.. ' 0.13 t!p bl ' SlOTT CO,., ' ' ' $94,080 1,879,,.. ' 0,09 ' )36,2. SOME OF '' IMPRGVEMENTS ARE TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED PART Of ' PROPOSED R CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NU. B R ' INJURY ACCJOENTS!NUMBER ' INJURIES SPECIFIED INJURY ACCIOENTSI 44

52 TABLE 42. SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENT COSTS TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT Spot Improvements General Improvements Bridge Widening Ramp Improvements De-slicking Improvements* T()TAL COSTS $2,517,000 $);2, 977' 000 $8,753, 000 $2,500,000 $730,560 COSTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS WI':IJH B/0 ;?; 1.0 $1,038, 000 $12,977' 000 $3,015, 000 $2,225, 000 $325 '120 All Improvements $27,477,560 $19,580, 120 * De-slicking improvements are based on accident records and are included here as proj ects which will later be priority ranked by dynamic programming. A memo to F. R. McHargue from J. H. Havens dated April 24, 1978, presented another list of pavement overlays to increase skid resistance which was based on accident potential and accident records. The list sent to F. R. McHargue was to be included in the 1979 Interstate Cost Estimate. PRIORITY RANKING To prioritize projects, construction costs and expected accident savings must be known. Also, interest rates, growth rates, and maintenance costs are needed. Projects were then subjected to dynamic programming analyses. S,ome changes in the computer progams were made to adapt the procedure to the Interstate Safety Improvement Program; these revised programs and coding instructions are presented in APPENDIX G. Input into the program included numbers of injuries, fatalities, and property-damage-only (PDO) accidents for each project location during the previous year. Percentage reductions for these accidents were also used along with improvement costs, annual maintenance costs, and service lives of each project. An interest rate of eight percent was used along with a volume growth rate of five percent per year. Output from the program included information for each improvement project as shown in Figure 2. The improvement in this example involves the installation of ramp metering on I 75 at milepost The numbers of fatalities (0), injuries (3), and property damage accidents (7) are given first Then, a listing of cost ($60,000), service life (10 years), annual maintenance cost ($2,000), and expected percentage reductions are given for various accident severities (75 percent for each in this case). Also, total benefits and costs are given along with present-worth values. A benefit/cost ratio of 1.79 could be realized from this improvement. The program output also includes a listing of all projects in order of benefit/cost ratio as shown in Figure 3. This figure could be used to determfne priority rankings based on benefit-cost ratios alone. The largest benefit-cost ratio was 44.01, which corresponded to the addition of exit signs on the left side of I 65 south of Louisville. The next project (benefit-cost ratio of 33.16) was the installation of diagrammatic signs at the I-65 bridge in Louisville. A total of 41 of the 58 projects had a benefit-cost ratio of 1.0 or higher. This listing also provides a colurrm of cumulative benefit-cost ratio which allows for the selection of projects by the benefit-cost method for a given budget. The dynamic programming output was also obtained for assumed budgets of $5 million, $10 million, $15 million, $20 million, $25 million, and $30 million as given in Figures 4 through 9. For the $5 million budget, only 15 of the projects were selected with a combined benefit-cost ratio of 4.04 (Figure 4), The combined benefit-cost ratios for other budgets were 2.88 for the $10 million budget (Figure 5), 2.32 for the $15 million budget (Figure 6), 2.00 for the $20 million budget (Figure 7), 1.80 for the $25 million btulget (Figure 8), and 1.55 for the $30 million budget (Figure 9). 45

53 REF NO 15 RAMP MTER I ACCIDENT HISTORY 1o00YEARS. MONTH btyear 78, 3 CAUSE. NO NO. NO. KILLED INJURED PDQ l o. o. o. 2 o. 3 o. 3 a. o. TOTALS o. 3e ALTERNATIVE COST LIFE MAIN COST EFFECT ON a. zooo. 1 2 o. 75 o.75 3 o.75 TOTAL BENEF ITS AND COSTS ALTERNAT IVE MAINTENANCE COST ACC BENEFIT l BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS, MAINTENANC E INCLUDED ***PRESENT WORTH METHOD ** ALTERNATIVE MAINTENANCE COST ACC BENEFIT BENEFIT /COS T Figure 2. Example Output from Dynamic Programming with Information about a Safety Improvement Project. 46

54 Figure 3. Example Output from Dynamic Programming Showing a Listing of All Projects in Order by Benefit-Cost Ratio. '************************LOC ATIONS, ALTERNAT IVES, COSTS m BENEFIT S-ORDERE 0 BENEFIT/COST RAT 10*'*******''************** --LQC,I, T I DN---LOC AT ION NAME AL T -NUM COST-----R ET URN-----B/C RAT I ACCUM COST--ACCUM RETURN u Ex tt SIGNS ' sooo. 2.Z o Ho ' DIAGR SIGN ' RAMP MHR m SEAT BELT SIGNS l MEDIAN PIER PROTECT : S57b772. ' MESGE m ' GLAR EPO STS-I s SH8l3o REMOVE X - OVERS o ' SIGN-CLAYS FERY RAMP!HER m S l GN- IH ' ' L no. CLEAR GORES o t l10885o ' SIGN m LAUREL lj2703o tl ' MESGE Ge TRANS! w BRIDGE 811:> RESURF ' l30o Hb0o ENDS-BC T :> n DE LIN >0' WRONG-WAY :> :> REPLACE R JGID SIGNS o ' TRANS V o STRIPE-R AMP S :>64. RAMP ''!264 '.' \9lo z '5. REPLACE RIGID POLES :>37811:> ' MESGE ' ' o b 1:>1:> :>. ' RESURF ' :> ,36 b659'52d RAMP '' m l'hol DELI N >ce SHOUL 51 ooo lo'lb RESURF m l Do 28881> RAMP MTER ' 183. a o ' GLAREPOSTS-I lo SOS1344. ' THRIE,HI-ORI m lobo 1322'> GLAREPOSTS o55 743S >00. RAMP '' ' ' ' lo '506. ' SIGN 164 KY ' :> '52552Do RA'IP '' m 1!11:> I % RESURF 1264 ' 891:>00. It WIDEN BR lb5 ' loll> GRADE ROCK CUTS ' RAMP ' t 'l ' ' RAMP ' l - 21:> lo W IOEN sr t75 (I OJ lo03 171:> ). UPGRADE w l!ri I.o ) ' ACCEL LANE ' ' 'l6. ' HI-DR I 't762o Q, B< Gl AR EPOS T 5-!65EIR log O. B W!DEN ' 1264 ' b1o o RAMP ' I 2!> 'l07. o 't l09131:>5, RAMp '' m 183. B o RESURF m o ' HI-OR! ' , RESURF ' 't RESURF m! :>1)6, o.1a 't0o 411!3141. WIDEN ' ' ( 2 1) 't21>20oo. 1:> o 'l'l'l. RESURF m 100 o ), WIDEN ' 12b't ' b250doo :> RESURF ' I 'to, RESURF RAMP '' ' ooo o. l L) 273!13't80. 't2521:>2 32. ' 61o 't80o , R E SURF m t0o

55 Figure 4. Example Output from Dynamic Programming Showing a Prioritized Listing of Improvements for a $5,000,000 Budget. LISTING OF SELECTED PROJECTS BY 8/C RATIO BUDGET soooooo. LOCATION 7 ' LOCATION NAME LT EKIT SIGNS 165 RAMP MTER ,5 SEAT. BELT SIGNS-343 MEDIAN PIER PROTECT VAR MESGE GLAREPOS TS-I 75 REMOVE MEO )(-OVERS ICE SIGN-CLAYS FERY RAMP MTER ICE SIGN-!71 LN RR CLEAR GORES VAR MESGE! GR TRANSI TO BRIDGE RESURF GR ENDS-BCT Al T-NUM ' ' ' ' ' ' ' COST I 5000, , > RETURN ACCUM RETURN , , lo o o 149& 'IC ACCUM 'IC 44.0 l 44o0l l4o , o o ,40 7.u 6 o'i7 6 o5o 6o o63 4o , h 4o04 Figure 5. Example Output from Dynamic Programming Showing a Prioritized Listing of Improvements for a $10,000,000 Budget. LISTING OF SELECTED PROJECTS BY B/C RATIO BUDGET = ', tooooooo. LOU,TION 5 LOCATION NAME LT EXIT SIGNS 165 OIAGR SIGN 165 SB RAMP HTER o5 SEAT BELT SIGNS-343 AL T-NUM ' ' ' ' COST I RETURN ACCUM RETURN , > e1c 44.0 l ACCUM B/C >0 n 25 MEDIAN PIER PROTECT VAR MESGE :18.9 GL AREPOSTS-I7 5 REMOVE MEO X-OVERS ICE SIGN-CLAYS FERY RAMP MTER I ICE SIGN-I11 LN RR CLEAR GORES ICE SIGN 175 LAUREL VAR MESGE GR TRANS! TO BRIDGE ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' D7ooo T o , o o a &o s.as o 73 ' ' ' ' RESURF ,8 GR ENDS-BCT -:noo OELIN FOR WRONG-WAY REPLACE RIGID SIGNS T RANSV. STRI PE-RAMPS RAMP IMP ,5 REPLACE RIG!D POLES VAR MESGE RESURF RAMP IMP I DELIN FOR NAR SHOUL RESURF RAMP MTER ,8 GLAREPOSTS-I 26 4 THRIEoHI-DRI GR I15 GLAREPO S TS-165 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' , soooo ll B340o 'H , ll B8o , & > , , ! , 31> lo 8 I!. 79 1o 70 lo 60! o ,9& ! 3o 56 3o RAMP IMP ICE SIGN 164 KY RIV lo 52!. 50 3o RAMP IMP RESURF 1264 Sol W!DEN BR-165 C71 EXT RAMP IMP I B469I o o 4 7 lo 31!. 26! o93 ' ACCEL LANE EXT 165 RESURF o o ***'*'*'**'*''*'*'*' ********* TOTAlS *'''*'*****'**'''*******'*'*' lobs 48

56 Figure 6. Example Output from Dynamic Programming Showing a Prioritized Listing of Improvements for a $15,000,000 Budget. LISTING OF SELECTED PROJECTS BY 8/C RATIO BUDGET ' LOCATION H ' 23 ' 10 H , ' I 8 4< 13 4 LOCATION NAME LT EXIT SIGNS 165 OlAGR SIGN 165 SB RAMP MTER SEAT BELT SIGNS-343 MEDIAN PIER PROTECT VAR MESGE I15 lbb.9 GLAREPOSTS-175 REMOVE MEO X-OVERS ICE SIGN-CLAYS FERY RAMP IHER ITS ICE SIGN-111 LN RR CLEilR GORES ICE SIGN 115 LAUREL VAR MESGE tb GR TRANS I TO llr I DGE RESURF!65 l30o8 GR ENOS-BCT DELIN FOR WRONG-WAY REPLACE RIGID SIGNS TRANSV. STRIPE-RAMPS RAMP IMP REPLACE RIGID POLES VAR MESGE! RESURF 165 l26o9 RAMP IMP!75 19lo2 OELIN FOR NAR SHOUL RESURF RAMP MTER GLAREPOSTS-1264 THRIEoHI-DRI GR 175 GLAREPDSTS-165 RAMP IMP!64 4,6 ICE SIGN 164 KY RIV RAMP IMP ,4 RESURF WIDEN BR-165 C 7 I GRADE ROCK CUTS EXT RAMP IMP ACCEL LANE EXT 165 RESURF I75!87.7 AL T-NUM I I I I I COST U7ooo. 38 soao o soooo soooo o aooooo RETURN > > o o '' t,55 0, r. < 1412'j > 'to s1 r.s El67o ' o S8't o ACCUM RETURN 22003lo l3o ll243587o 121>51> 'to > ' 't564't66o I 1. 25b7S600o 25751S06o ' UB /C 4'to0 I )3, o't , o44 3o 32 3ol o51 2, I, 81 I I.52 loso I l. 21 lo 13 Oo ACCUM B/C 4' ,91 25, ,06 1 o45 7ol >, ,85 s.eo 5,) 'to04 4,01 3,96 3o96 3, ,66 3o66 3, o61 3,56 3, o44 3o 43 3o't o i '1.801'

57 Figure 7, Example Output from Dynamic Programming Showing a Prioritized Listing of Improvements for a $20,000,000 Budget. LISTING OF SELECTED PROJECTS BY 8/C RATIO BUDGET LOCATION LOCATION NAME Al T-NUM COST RETURN ACCUM RETURN u EX IT SIGNS ' ' lo ' DIAGR SIGN ' &&).J H RAMP MTER m f SEAT BELT SIGNS '0 MEOI AN PIER PROTECT ' MESGE m lbb,q ' GLAREPOS TS-I rsnsn. REMOVE ' X-OVERS ' SIGN-CLAYS FERY RAMP MTER m , ' SIGN-171 ' ]30, CLEIIR GORES ' SIGN m LAUREL l3270] VAR MESGE I2b L 27l TRANS! ' EIRI DGE ' RESURF ' tjo.a ENDS-BCT DELIN ' WRONG-WAY ' '0 REPLACE RIGID SIGNS , TRAN SV, STRI PE- RM-!P S RAMP '' I 264 ',, REPLACE RIGID POLES , ' MESGE ' ' , RESURF ' RAMP '' ' lll DELHI,0, ' SHOUL RESURF m RAMP MTER m ' GL AREPO STS- I 264 2: : ' THRIE,HI-ORI ' e GLAREPOSTS RAMP l.'ip ',,, ' SIGN 164 K Y ' : , RAMP H1P ' RESURF 1264 e.' ll7773o WIDEN SR-165 ' GRADE ROCK CUTS o m RAMP ' l ' RA.'!P '' H WIDEN BR-175 ( 10) Cl7209o UPGRADE ' 0' BRI ' ACCEL LANE m ' ' GL AR EPOSTS-I 651.lR I DG RAMP ' RESURF m!b RESURF ' ,,, ACCUM SIC 't4.at o9l s.o:. s , ,61 3o , o s.eo 3ol4 5o o9l o o ], 7l I. 96 3,63 t, Bl ],56! lo 55 3o o : o42 t I 0 2o25 t ,OJ o. 85 2o01 o, 76 2.oo o oo oo ***************************** T::JTALS ********************** ******* oo 50

58 Figure 8. Example Output from Dynamic Programming Showing a Prioritized Listing of Improvements for a $25,000,000 Budget. listing OF SELECTED PROJECTS BY 8/C RATIO BUDGET LOCATION LOCATION NAME AL T-NUM COST RETURN ACCUM RETURN u EX IT SIGNS ' ' ' DIAGR SIGN ', l RAMP IHER ' 190, SEAT BELT SIGNS-343 TOOOOo 1009_ MEDIAN PIER PROTECT l16b ' HESGE m ], 1 GLAREPOSTS RE.OVE X-OVERS w m SIGN-CLAYS FERY > RAMP MTER m 190,] To >. u ' SIGN CLEAR GORES ll10885o ICE SIGN ' LAUREL ] ' MESGE &300. TRANS I TO BRIDGE RESURF o ENOS-BCT -3 lod DEL IN ' WRONG-WAY REPLACE RIGID SIGNS l TRAN S\1. STRI PE- RAMPS ]OOODo l372604o 'I RAMP ' 1.2&4 ' ' 7500D REPLACE RIGID POLES ' MESGE o RESURF ' 1.20 o9 ] o RAMP ' H DE LIN ' SHOUL RESURF m RAMP MTER m ' GLARE POSTS- I ' THRIE0HI-DRI m ] ' GLAREPOS7S-165 ll o RAMP!<e I ' ' D tee SIGN 104 K Y m RAMP!<e m RESURF ' WIDEN BR-I65 11> GRADE ROCK CUTS ] m RAMP I aooooo '' RA.MP I<e : :: WIDEN BR-175 ( o 1a UPGRADE ' ' BRIO D. 1920!104o o ' ACCEL LANE m ISO t a96. HI-DRI o GLAREPOSTS-Ib5BRIOG ] WIDEN ' I21>4 ' il361o RAMP!Me teoo ll65 0 RAMP!Me m I li6727lo RESURF m l87o ! ' Hl-ORI ISO t! t RESURF ' t b , RESURF m ] l3141. RESURF m 100 o l724774o WIDEN ' 1264 ' ass RESURF ' ta l82792a. 57 RESURF IS' 6) o RAMP l<e ' ISO RESURF m 132.o a5.2015o ' ACCUM ' 44.0 L ] l4o42 l1o0l TolS ,61 ], 72 6o Oo47 3o eo old '' o0l z o o96 3o93 Zo o 36 lo60 z. 36 ' z. 23 3o65 t.96 3o lo6l lo6l 1o '55 lo52 lo ' lo ].39 lo20 lo09 }.21 2 o42 } :35 1o10 lo03 t.o l a o a a oba o. 26 t.sa Oo 18 t.sa o. 16 I ob7 O. IS t.83 Doll l.112 o. 1] 1 o82 DolO I.81 o.o9 1.8o ******''*'*********''' ***** *** TOTALS ''******''****** ******** ** **'' Do 4la52015o o80 51

59 Figure 9. Example Output from Dynamic Programming Showing a Prioritized Listing of Improvements for a $30,000,000 Budget. LISTING OF SELECTED PROJECTS B/C RATIO BUDGET LOCATION, 17 B 7 10 u '4 ' ' ' 22 H ' ' 3 % 37 LOCATION NAME ALT-NUM COST RETURN ACCUM RETURN u EX IT SIGNS los I D!AGR SIGN ' I RAMP MTER m I , SEAT BELT SIGNS-3't3 I MEDIAN PIER PROTECT I :. ' MESGE m L88o9 I GLAREt'OSTS- 175 I l Ztl. 757.Hil3o REMOVE '' X-OVERS ' 3BSOOO, '>109]6, m SIGN-CLAYS FERY I RAMP MTER m I m SJGN-171 ' ' o CLEAR GORES ' ICE SIGN m LAUREL ' ' MESGE ' TRANS! TO BRIDGE I &. RESURF ' I 1881&0. 54B340o &. ENDS-8CT I 1& & DELI N ' WRONG-WAY I REPLACE RIGID SIGNS ' 1aeooo TRANSV. STRI PE-RAMP S I &4. RAMP '' 12&4 '' I 75000o > REPLACE RIGID POLES I ] ' MESGE ' 130o7 I l78876o RESURF ' I l5Z943o RAMP ' m 191ol I lll DELIN FOR NAR SHOUL I & RESURF m RAMP MTER GLAR EPO STS-I THRIE,HI-DRI m GLAREPOSTS-Ib l RAMP ' 10. '' ICE SIGN 164- K Y ' , RAMP ' m RESURF 1264 Bo ll WIDEN BR-I65 17> $ GRADE ROCK CUTS & ' RAMP '' l-lb ENT RAMP '' I , WIDEN BR I UPGRADE ' ON BR! '127. ACCEL LANE ' ' Hl-DRI I GLAREPOSTS-l65BR I OG W!DlN 1264 ' as U36l o RAMP '' 1264! RAMP '' m RESURF 175 l87o ! H I-ORI ' ! RESURF RESURF m! ! l314lo WIDEN ' I 21 I RESURF m <'. WIDEN 1264 ' RESURF m , RESURF ' blo RAMP ' m teo RESURF m 132.o B/C ACCUM ' 44o0l o9l zs or , o6l 3o72 6.5] 3o o o o ob o & 4o lo5l o96 lo l ob6 z & loll o o63 lo o 60 3o48 1, 55 3o o o <' l.z lolj 2 o3 5 lo {13 2 o Oo o. 88 1o98 o. 85 } o lo92 o Oo sa 0.16 lobo 0.16 l.60 Ool l.56 o. 13 lo56 Do I o.o * *** ' * *** ***''*****'''' * TOTALS '********** *** * '' ** ***** * I o55 52

60 SUMMARY This report presents the proposed Interstate Safety Improvement Program for Kentucky. Included is a compilation of procedures, results, and priority rankings of the recommended improvements. Considerable detail is presented in the body of the report; however, reference should be made to APPENDIX G for a user's guide to assist in the implementation of this program and its expansion into other highway systems. The original intent was to prepare a separate report as a user1s guide; however, a more practical approach was taken, and a generalized guide was prepared with references to details in a companion report (4). Evaluation of the Interstate Safety Improvement Program was not covered in this report or the earlier report (4). Guidelines for the evaluation are presented in the Federal Highway Administration Program Manual (3). The basic requirements for an evaluation should include the following: (a) an assessment of the costs and benefits of various means and methods used to eliminate identified hazards, (b) a comparison of accident data before and after the improvements, (c) basic cost data used. for each type of corrective measure and the number of each type of improvement undertaken during the year, and (d) methods employed in establishing project priorities. I. REFERENCES Agent, K. R. ; Evaluation of the High-Accident Location Spot-Improvement Program in Kentucky, Report 357, Division of Research, Kentucky Department of Highways, February Agent, K. R.; Development of WaiTants for Left- Turn Phasing, Report 456, Division of Research, Kentucky Department of Transportation; August Yamane, Taro; Statistics: Analysis, Second Edition, Publishers, New York, An Introductory Harper & Rowe 7. Traffic Safety Memo, National Safety Council, Chicago, Illinois, July Zegeer, C. V.; and Rizenbergs, R. L.; Modification of Kentucky's Adequacy-Rating Techniques, Report 459, Division of Research, Kentucky Department of Transportation, November Pigman, J. G.; Agent, K. R.; Mayes, J. G.; and Zegeer, C. V.; Optimal Highway Safety Improvements by Dynamic Programming, Report 412, Division of Research, Kentucky Department of Transportation, April Uniform Police Traffic Accident Master File, Summary of Accidents I I. Agent, K. R.; Guardrail Perfonnance: An Analysis of Accident Records, Report 442, Division of Research, Kentucky Department of Transportation, March Calcote, L. R.; and Wiles, E. 0.; A Cost - Effectiveness Model for Guardrail Selection, Southwest Research Institute, TRB Presentation, Bronstad, M. E.; Michie; J. D.; Viner, J. G.; and Behin, W. E.; Evaluation of Thrie Beam Traffic Barriers, Transportation Research Board, Annual Report, Kentucky Highway Safety Programs, Office of Highway Safety Programs, Kentucky Department of Transportation. 14. Energy Absorption Systems, Inc. Chicago, Illinois, Hi Dri Guardrail Blackouts Informational Literature. 3. Federal Highway Administration, Federal-Aid Program Manual, Volume 6, Chapter 8, Section 2, Subsection 1, Highway Safety Improvement Program, July 3, Pigman, J. G.; Agent, K. R.; and Zegeer, C. V.; Development of Procedures for Preparation of the Interstate Safety Improvement Program, Report 495, Division of Research, Kentucky Department of Transportation, February Pigman, J. G.; Seymour, W. M.; Agent, K. R.; and Cornette D. L; An Operational Analysis of the I 64, I 65, I 71 Route Junction in Louisville, Report 326, Division of Research, Kentucky Department of Highways, April Summary of Recommendations Division Directors, Safety from District April Improvement Engineers and 53

61 17. Preliminary Information from the 1979 Interstate Cost Estimate, Department of Transpqrtation, Division of Facilities Planning. 18. Average Unit Bid Prices for All Projects Awarded, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Highways, Division of Design, Hanscom, F. R.; Evaluation of Diagramatic Signing at Capital Beltway Exit Number 1, Virginia Highway Research Council, Musick, J. V., Accident Analysis Before and After Installation of Expanded Metal Glare Screen, Highway Research Board, Artar, A.; Syro Steel Company, Girard, Ohio, Telephone Conversation, May Waldnan, J.; Surface Systems, Incorpmated, St. Louis, Missouri, Telephone conversation, May Standard Drawings, Department of Transportation, June Agent, K. R.; Accidents Associated with Highway Bridges, Report 427, Division of Research, Kentucky Department of Transportation, May 1975, 25. Brinkman, C. P.; Highway Ice Detection, Transportation Engineering, November Phillips, R.; Ice Detection System Warns Motorists, Pnblic Works, December Thomas, J. M.; Simple Ramp Metering Device Reduces Rear-End Collisions, Traffic Engineering, June Olivarez, D. R.; Ramp Metering on the Black Canyon Freeway, Arizona University, Overmyer; Associated Systems, Incorporated, Crouse-Hinds representative, Macedonia, Ohio, Telephone conversation, May Agent, K. R.; Transverse, Pavement Marking for Speed Control and Accident Reduction, Report 433, Division of Research, Kentucky Department of Transportation, September Highway Design and Operational Practices Related to Highway Safety, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Second Edition, Zegeer, C. V.; Identification of Hazardous Locations on Rural Highways in Kentucky, Report 410, Division of Research, Kentucky Department of Transportation, June Zegeer, C. V.; Identification of Hazardous Locations on City Streets, Report 436, Division of Research, Kentucky Department of Transportation, November Siria, B. S.; Seymour, W. M.; Cornette, D. C.; and Miller, J. L.; Experimental Installations of Impact Attenuation Devices, Report 308, Division of Research, Kentucky Department of Highways, May Bodocsi, A.; Cook, J.; Minkarah, I.; and Parker, D.; Comparative Study of Highway Sign Supports - Phase I, Cincinnati University,! Pigman, J. G.; and Cornette, D. L.; Before-and-After Analysis of Safety Improvements on I 75 in Northern Kentucky, Report 344, Division of Research, Kentucky Department of Transportation, January _ Graf, N. L.; Boos, J. V.; and Wentworth, J. A.; Single- Vehicle Accidents Involving Utility Poles, Pnblic Roads, Garner, G. R.; Accidents at Median Crossovers, Report 278, Division of Research, Kentucky Department of Highways, June Shepard, F. D.; Evaluation of Raised Pavement Marker for Reducing Incidences of Wrong-Way Driving, Virginia Highway Research Council, Lew, A.; Wrong-Way Driving, Phase III, California Division of Highways, Pigman, J. G.; Agent, K. R.; and Rizenbergs, R. L.; Evaluation of Raised Pavement Markers, Report 425, Division of Research, Kentucky Department of Transportation, April

62 42. Michie, J. D.; and Bronstad, M. E.; Guardrail Crash Test Evaluation New Concepts and End Designs, NCHRP Report 129, Highway Research Board, Design Memorandum No , Kentucky Department of Transportation, Division of Design, June 24, Priority Listings of Features from the Bridge Inventory File, Kentucky Department of Transportation, Division of Maintenance, Agent, K. R.; and Barclay, M.; Seatbelt Usage in Kentucky, Report 487, Division of Research, Kentucky Department of Transportation, January Summary of Bridge Design Data, Estimate for I 75 Bridge over KY 338, Division of Bridges, Kentucky Department of Transportation, June Roy Jorgensen Associates, Inc.; Cost and Safety Effectiveness of Highway Design Elements, NCHRP 3-25, Transportation Research Board, April Input Data for Co st-effectiveness Models of Highway Accident Countermeasures, Texas Transportation Institute, December Project Status Reports, Kentucky Department of Transportation, Division of Design,

63

64 APPENDIX A PHOTOGRAPHS OF ROADWAY FEATURES 57

65

66 Figure AI. Rock Cuts; I 64, Lexington-West Virginia State Line. Figure A2. Rock Cuts and Fallen Rocks; I 64, Lexington-West Virginia State Line. 59

67 Figure A3. Median Bridge Piers Unprotected; I 64, Louisville. Figure A4. Earth around Median Bridge Pier; I 64, Lexington-West Virginia State Line. 60

68 Figure AS. Guardrail and Shrubs around Median Bridge Pier; I 64, Louisville. Figure A6. G.R.E.A.T. Crash Cushion around Median Bridge Pier; I 65, Jefferson County, 61

69 Figure A7. Concrete Barrier and Shrubs around Median Bridge Pier; I 275, Kenton County. Figure A8. Guardrail with Buried End-Treatment; I 64, Lexington-West Virginia State Line. 62

70 Figure A9. Guardrail with llnd Treatment Anchored in Concrete; tilt.lwn-tenne..., Slate Line. Fill AHI. Gwmll!llil llwl with 'llreabway Coble Terminal; I 65, llllzobethtown Tom'' Stale Line. 63

71 Figure All. Guardrail with Blunt End; I 64, Lexington-West Virginia State Une. Figure Al2. Bridge without Side Piers; I 64, Lexington-West Virginia Slate Line. 64

72 Figure A13. Oear Zone between Roadway and Side Piers; I 64, Lexington-Louisville. Figure A14. G lll'drail around Bridge Side Pier; I 64, Lexington-West VUginla State Line. 65

73 Figure AIS. Shrubs ill Front of Gap between Bridges; I 64, Lexmgton-West Virginia State Line. Figure A16. Gnardrail at Gap between Bridges (Narrow Median); I 65, Lonisville-Eiizabethtown. 66

74 Figure Al7. Guardrail at Gap between Bridges (Wide Median); I 64, Lexington-Lonisville. Fignre A18. Concrete Barrier at Gap between Bridges; I 264, Louisville. 67

75 Figure Al9. Clear Gore Area; I 64, Lexington West Virginia State Line. Figure A20. Non-Breakaway Sign Supports and lllunt-end Guardrail in Gore Area; I 264, Louisville. 68

76 Figure A21. Rumble Bars in Gore Area; I 64, Louisville. Figure A22. Severed Wooden Light Pole; I 264, Louisville. 69

77 Figure A23. Breakaway Light!'ole; I 264, Louisville. Figure A24. Non-Breakaway Light!'ole; I 264, Lonimlle. 70

78 Figure A25. Rigid Sign Supports; I 264, Louisville. Figure A26. Wooden Sign Supports and Light Pole, I 264, Louisville. 71

79 Figure A27. Cantilevered Sign Support; I 275, Kenton Coooty. Figure A28. Full-Width Shoulders on Bridge; I 275, Kenton County. 72

80 Figure A29. Median Croosover; I 71, Henry County. Figure A30. Median Cro..over (Millie by Motorists); I 65, lllizabetlitown-tennessee. 73

81 Figure A31. Exposed Headwalls, Blunt-End Guardrail, aud Non-Breakaway Sign Supports; I 264, Louisville. Fignre A32. Fence Used to Restrain Falling Rocks; I