01.10.2013 Views

Toll Facility Safety Study Report to Congress - About

Toll Facility Safety Study Report to Congress - About

Toll Facility Safety Study Report to Congress - About

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>Toll</strong> <strong>Facility</strong> <strong>Safety</strong> <strong>Study</strong> <strong>Report</strong> <strong>to</strong> <strong>Congress</strong><br />

thus urge the reader <strong>to</strong> consult the AASHTO Green Book for sight distance considerations and<br />

equations.<br />

A recent report by FHWA, conducted by Wilbur Smith Associates (2006), State of the Practice<br />

and Recommendations on Traffic Control Strategies at <strong>Toll</strong> Plazas, also provides general<br />

information on <strong>to</strong>ll plaza design and traffic control devices. The report describes several<br />

recommendations dealing with safety design at <strong>to</strong>ll facilities. The first section addresses design<br />

in the approach zone and recommends the use of the transition zone taper values proposed by<br />

McDonald and Stammer (see above). Additionally, the authors suggest that if an upstream<br />

interchange is located in a way that drivers cannot change lanes quickly enough <strong>to</strong> reach the ETC<br />

lanes, then the maneuver should be physically prevented through barriers. A third<br />

recommendation dealing with the approach zone is that sensors should be placed at <strong>to</strong>ll lanes <strong>to</strong><br />

prevent oversized trucks from entering the lane.<br />

The second section on safety design deals with the departure zone. The authors recommend that<br />

the transition zone taper values proposed by McDonald and Stammer be used and that recovery<br />

zones should be long enough <strong>to</strong> allow sufficient driver reorientation, acceleration, and initial<br />

merge. The authors again recommend that in departure zones, if a downstream interchange is<br />

located so close <strong>to</strong> the <strong>to</strong>ll plaza that ETC users cannot safely change lanes <strong>to</strong> make the exit, then<br />

the movement should be restricted through physical barriers. The authors also suggest that when<br />

dedicated ETC lanes are used, a physical barrier should separate the dedicated lanes from other<br />

<strong>to</strong>ll traffic until the other traffic has accelerated <strong>to</strong> two-thirds of the operating speed.<br />

The report addresses various other safety design issues as well, suggesting, for example, that<br />

when express lanes are used, they should be located <strong>to</strong> the far left of the plaza for consistency<br />

and that they should be designed with shoulder and lane width characteristics that are similar <strong>to</strong><br />

the mainline approach. The report also advises the use of lighting for safety in which the<br />

intensity levels and uniformity ratios should be based on the American National Standards<br />

Institute (ANSI) and Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) values.<br />

A case study by Mohamed et al (2001) describes safety considerations related <strong>to</strong> the design of<br />

electronic <strong>to</strong>ll plazas. The authors define five main lane types that are used at <strong>to</strong>ll facilities (a<br />

classification similar <strong>to</strong> the one McDonald and Stammer describe) which are: manual,<br />

au<strong>to</strong>matic, mixed, dedicated au<strong>to</strong>matic vehicle identification (AVI), and express AVI. During a<br />

period of 3½ years from 1994 <strong>to</strong> 1997, data was analyzed for the Orlando-Orange County<br />

Expressway Authority in Florida. The data show that 32 percent of the crashes occurred at their<br />

10 mainline <strong>to</strong>ll plazas. The monthly crash rate also significantly increased when comparing the<br />

rate before ETC was added and after ETC was added (from 3.4 <strong>to</strong> 7.5 crashes per month). The<br />

authors identify several conflict points and dangerous behaviors including merging, queuing, and<br />

speeding vehicles. Some suggested reasons that ETC caused an increase in crashes could be<br />

driver unfamiliarity with the system, <strong>to</strong>ll plaza configuration, and the possible speed variance<br />

between drivers that use ETC and drivers that do not. Solutions mentioned include increasing<br />

the width of the ETC lanes, arranging similar lane types within the plaza, providing more<br />

advance signing, adding variable message signs <strong>to</strong> show payment methods available and status of<br />

lanes, and an extensive use of pavement markings. Pavement markings could be used <strong>to</strong> reduce<br />

speeds, discourage weaving and lane changes, reduce driver confusion, and reduce conflict<br />

points.<br />

Appendix B – Literature Review Page B-3

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!