首页> 外文学位 >Policy Considerations and Evaluation of the Safety Effectiveness of Rumble Strips in Wyoming: Accommodation of All Road Users.
【24h】

Policy Considerations and Evaluation of the Safety Effectiveness of Rumble Strips in Wyoming: Accommodation of All Road Users.

机译:怀俄明州隆隆地带安全性的政策考虑和评估:所有道路使用者的住宿条件。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Rumble strips/stripes are used by many states as a relatively low cost proven safety countermeasure to reduce or prevent lane departure crashes by providing a vibrotactile and audible warning to inattentive motorists. Although the advantages of rumble strips are generally found to outweigh the disadvantages, several issues and concerns have been identified regarding the implementation of rumble strips. The main goal of this study is to develop an effective policy of shoulder and centerline rumble strips/stripes in the State of Wyoming to enhance motor vehicle safety while accommodating all road users to the highest practical extent. Surveys were conducted to assess road users' concerns about rumble strips. Moreover, several issues regarding the use of rumble strips/stripes including: construction, maintenance, and noise are discussed. With the help of WYDOT, information regarding the state of practice of rumble strips/stripes in the U.S. was collected. Information was obtained through a review of the literature, online survey, and email communication with States DOTs. Thirty states responded to the online survey. Only four agencies have fully adhered to the NCHRP guidelines; Idaho, Mississippi, Nevada, and New Mexico. Fifteen agencies indicated that they are using the guidelines provided by NCHRP with some modifications to suit the needs of their region. Seven agencies are using their own guidelines; Alabama, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming. Among the agencies which took the survey, only Oklahoma responded that they do not have a written policy for rumble strips.;Based on the DOTs guidelines identified recently from the literature and survey responses, thirty state agencies have already made provisions to accommodate bicyclists. Only three agencies responded that they do not have any provisions for bicyclists while the remaining eighteen state agencies indicated that they do not have adequate information to address this issue.;The rest of the survey results showed that many DOTs are still updating their rumble strip policies. DOTs which had already been using their own guidelines are now moving forward to accommodate the non-conventional vehicles and nearby residents. About 72 percent of the states are following the NCHRP Report 641 guideline, either strictly or with some modifications. Application criteria and maintenance practices vary by state. Shoulder rumble strips are more widely used than centerline rumble strips or shoulder rumble stripes. Rumble strips are installed mostly on rural roadways since they possess fewer constraints on installation criteria. All of the 30 states which responded to the survey are using SRS and among them 27 states are using CLRS. The use of the combination of SRS and CLRS is not adopted by all the states, only 55 percent of the states are using both types in combination. Although the NCHRP 641 issued guidance on how state agencies can balance the increase in rumble strips implementation while accommodating all roadway users, 16 percent of state DOTs have indicated that their policies do not have any provisions for bicyclists when installing rumble strips, whereas, 42 percent of the DOTs do not consider noise when installing rumble strips. Most of the DOTs commented that they try to avoid installing rumble strips in urban areas to prevent noise. From the survey responses, information gathered in earlier surveys, and from synthesis documents; it was found that 36 states made provisions to accommodate bicyclists; while only 3 states; Idaho, Maine, and Florida attempted to accommodate motorcyclists. Maine DOT provides skip pattern on centerline rumble strips in rumble strips to facilitate motorcycle lane changes. Idaho DOT uses centerline rumble strips only in no-passing zones. The governing criteria ranked by DOTs when a roadway is considered for installing rumble strips are in the following order; area type (urban vs. rural), guardrail, pavement type, pavement thickness, bicycle traffic, motorcyclists, noise, nearby residents.;An Expert System has been developed to provide an interactive easy way to navigate through rumble strips/stripes practices and guidelines in the U.S. It is recommended that the information compiled in the 'Expert System' should be fully utilized when adopting a new policy. It is also recommended that other DOTs implement or upgrade their rumble strips policies may utilize recent information presented in this study.;Nine rural two-lane segments of 121.6 miles were identified for safety effectiveness analysis and to calibrate Crash Modification Factors (CMF) for rumble strips in Wyoming. Three years of crash and traffic data in the before and after were used to conduct a Naive before-after analysis. The results showed significant effect of shoulder rumble strips on reducing target crashes and total crashes. Total crashes reduced by 40%. Additionally, Fatal and Injury (F+I) crashes, and Single Vehicle Run-Off-Road (SVROR) crashes reduced by 44% and 39%, respectively. (Abstract shortened by UMI.).
机译:隆隆声条/条纹被许多州用作相对低成本的安全对策,它通过向不注意的驾驶者提供可触知和可听见的警告来减少或防止车道偏离事故。尽管通常发现隆隆条的优点胜过缺点,但是已经确定了关于隆隆条的实施的若干问题和关注。这项研究的主要目的是在怀俄明州制定一项有效的路肩和中心线隆隆带/条纹政策,以提高机动车安全性,同时最大程度地适应所有道路使用者。进行调查以评估道路使用者对隆隆带的担忧。此外,还讨论了有关使用隆隆声条/条纹的几个问题,包括:构造,维护和噪音。在WYDOT的帮助下,收集了有关美国隆隆声条/条纹的使用状态的信息。信息是通过文献综述,在线调查以及与国家DOT的电子邮件通信获得的。三十个州对在线调查做出了回应。只有四个机构完全遵守了NCHRP准则;爱达荷州,密西西比州,内华达州和新墨西哥州。十五个机构表示,他们正在使用NCHRP提供的指南,并对其进行了一些修改以适合其所在地区的需求。七个机构正在使用自己的准则;阿拉巴马州,肯塔基州,马萨诸塞州,新罕布什尔州,北达科他州,德克萨斯州和怀俄明州。在接受调查的机构中,只有俄克拉荷马州回应说他们没有针对隆隆声条的书面政策。根据最近从文献中确定的DOT指南和调查答复,已有三十个州机构已经制定了适应骑自行车者的规定。只有三个机构回答说他们对骑自行车的人没有任何规定,而其余的十八个州机构表示他们没有足够的信息来解决这个问题。其余的调查结果表明,许多交通部仍在更新其隆隆地带政策。 。已经使用自己的指南的DOT现在正在向前发展,以容纳非常规车辆和附近的居民。大约72%的州严格或经过某些修改后都遵循NCHRP报告641指南。应用标准和维护实践因州而异。肩膀隆隆声条比中心线隆隆声条或肩膀隆隆声条使用更广泛。隆隆带主要安装在农村道路上,因为它们对安装标准的约束较少。接受调查的30个州全部使用SRS,其中27个州使用CLRS。并非所有州都采用SRS和CLRS的组合,只有55%的州同时使用两种类型。尽管NCHRP 641发布了有关州机构如何在兼顾所有道路使用者的同时平衡隆重带实施的增长的指南,但16%的州交通运输部表示,他们的政策中没有针对骑单车者安装隆隆带的规定,而42%的DOT在安装隆隆声条时不考虑噪音。大多数交通运输部评论说,他们试图避免在市区安装隆隆带以防止噪音。从调查答复,早期调查中收集的信息以及综合文件中;结果发现有36个州制定了容纳骑自行车者的规定;而只有3个州;爱达荷州,缅因州和佛罗里达州试图容纳摩托车手。缅因州DOT在隆隆声条的中线隆隆声条上提供跳跃模式,以方便摩托车车道的改变。爱达荷州交通运输部仅在不通行区域使用中线隆隆声条。当考虑在道路上安装隆隆带时,由DOT排序的管理标准如下:区域类型(城市vs.农村),护栏,路面类型,路面厚度,自行车交通,电单车司机,噪音,附近的居民。;已开发了专家系统,以互动方式轻松浏览隆隆声条/长条的做法和准则在美国建议采取新政策时,应充分利用“专家系统”中收集的信息。还建议其他DOT实施或升级其隆隆地带政策,可以利用本研究中提供的最新信息。;确定了121.6英里的9个农村两车道段,以进行安全有效性分析并校准撞击声修正因子(CMF)以进行隆隆声条在怀俄明州。之前和之后的三年崩溃和交通数据用于进行朴素的前后分析。结果表明,肩部隆隆声条对减少目标碰撞和总碰撞具有显著作用。总撞车次数减少了40%。此外,致命和伤害(F + I)崩溃以及单车越野行驶(SVROR)事故分别减少了44%和39%。 (摘要由UMI缩短。)。

著录项

  • 作者

    Sharif, Mirza Ahammad.;

  • 作者单位

    University of Wyoming.;

  • 授予单位 University of Wyoming.;
  • 学科 Civil engineering.;Transportation.
  • 学位 M.S.
  • 年度 2015
  • 页码 195 p.
  • 总页数 195
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号