A cost-effectiveness analysis was used to study safety-treatment options for embankments and culverts on resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation (3R) projects. An examination of the need for cable and W-beam guardrails to shield traffic from roadside embankments and roadside culverts, respectively, was made. Average embankment and culvert accident severities were estimated using Highway Safety Information System data from Utah and Michigan. Average accident severities were calibrated through computer simulations of ran-off-road accidents. Simplified design charts were developed to allow highway engineers to quickly determine the need for cable guardrail on 3R projects.
KohutekT. L., and RossH. E.Jr. Safety Treatment of Roadside Culverts on Low Volume Roads. Report 22-1, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, March1978.
3.
WolfordD. F., and SickingD. L.. Warrants for Embankments and Culverts.University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Sep.1996 (in preparation).
4.
Benefit to Cost Analysis Program.Publication FHWA-TS-88, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, June1988.
5.
SickingD. L., and RossH. E.Jr. Benefit-Cost Analysis of Roadside Safety Alternatives. In Transportation Research Record 1065, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1986, pp. 98–105.
6.
HutchinsonJ. W., and KennedyT. W.. Medians of Divided Highways—Frequency and Nature of Vehicle Encroachments. Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin 487, University of Illinois, Champaign, June1966.
7.
CooperP. Analysis of Roadside Encroachments—Single Vehicle Run-off-the-Road Accident Data Analysis For Five Provinces. British Columbia Research Council, Vancouver, March1980.
8.
MakK. K., SickingD. L., and RossH. E.Jr. Real-World Impact Conditions for Run-Reason-Off-the-Road Accidents. Transportation Research Record 1065, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1986, In pp. 45–55.
9.
CouncilF., WilliamsC., and HamiltonE.. Highway Safety Information System, Guidebook. Highway Safety Research Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, June1993.
10.
OlsonR. M., IveyD. L., PostE. R., GundersonR. H., and CetinerA.. NCHRP Report 149: Bridge Rail Design: Factors, Trends, and Guidelines, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1974, 70 pp.
11.
PowellG. H.. Computer Program for Evaluation of Automobile Barrier Systems. Report DOT-RD-73-51, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1973.
12.
SickingD. L., and WolfordD. F.. Development of Guardrail Runout Length Calculation Procedures. Report FHWA NE-94-8, University of Nebraska Lincoln, May1996.
ErinleO., HunterW., BronstadM., and CouncilF.. An Analysis of Guardrail and Median Barrier Accidents using the Longitudinal Barrier Special Studies (LBSS) File, Volume I. Report FHWA-RD-92-098, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., Feb.1994.
15.
RossH. E.Jr., and SicklingD. L.. Guidelines for Use of Temporary Barriers in Work Zones, Volume I. Final Report 4151-1, Texas A&M University, College Station.
16.
RossH. E.Jr., KrammesR. A., SickingD. L., TyerK. D., and PereraH. S.. Traffic Barriers and Control Treatments for Restricted Work Zones, Volumes 1–3. Final Report on NCHRP Project 17-8, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, May1991.
17.
PerchonokK., RanneyT., BaumA., MorrisD., and EppichJ.. Hazardous Effects of Highway Features and Roadside Objects, Volume 2. Report FHWA-RD-78-202, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Sept.1978.
18.
MichieJ. D. NCHRP Report 230: Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Appurtenances. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., March1981.
19.
MakK. K., and BlighR. P.. Recovery-Area Distance Relationships for Highway Roadsides. NCHRP, Project 17-11, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., Jan.1996.
