TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARDTITLE F-'AC;f: 1. Report No. 2. Government Acces,-:i-;;-;:;-·-:-:N:-o-.-------r-:::3~.-'""::R:-e-c-ip-ie-n--:t.:--s-:C:-a-to-:-1-og--:-N-o.--·-- ------ -- .. -----1

4. Title and S~b~t~le~-~-~~~-~~~~~~~~-~~~-~~~-~~5~.~R~.~~p-~o,··-t_D_o-te~-~~-- --------- Ill

PROCEDURES MANUAL FOR ROADSIDE HAZARD INVENTORY AND January, 1974

~-SA~F_E_~~-I-~_-_R_o_v~~~-_N_T~A_L_T~E-~~-~A_T_I_v_E_S~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~. Perlum~.o~·~··•·• Code--~~ 7. Authorfs) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

1

.

Graeme D. Weaver, Edward R. Post and Donald L. Woods Research Report 11-1

9. Performing Organization Nome and Address

Texas Transportation Institute

. ~ 10-; -Work Unit No. I

Texas A&M University College Station, Texas 77843

II. CoO"act "' G,ant No. . ·~ Research Study 2-8-72-11·----~~

12. Sponsoring Agency Nome and Addres;----------------------------------"""" 13. Typ"' of Report and Period Covercrl I Texas Highway Department Interim - September, 1972 !

!~=~!:, B~=~~= 78701 14. Spo-.;-;;,,,~~A;.;~~~~:.t '. ~g_7_3 . . . j 15. Supplementa<y Notes Research performed in cooperation with i>OT, FHWA ·-·· ······-·! Research Study Title: "Cost-Effectiveness Priority Program for Roadside Safety Improvements on Texas Freeways" I

.· ' -------l 16. Abstract I

The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 20-7, Task Order 1 proposed a probabilistic model to be used as a management tool in 1

establishing the priority for roadside safety improvements. It was expec.ted that I l

each state would adapt the research findings to its own specific needs and adminis-j trative structure. This report covers a phase of research to develop a formalized I.

implementation procedure compatible with Texas Highway Department policy, to pro­gram roadside safety improvements on controlled access highways based on the gen- 1

eralized NCHRP 20-7 research. The extremely large number of hazards that must be ! inventoried and the feasible safety improvement alternatives necessitate use of j a systematic coding procedure for eventual analysis by computer. To accomplish this, a Roadside Hazard Inventory form and a Roadside Hazard Improvement form were developed to accommodate applicable hazards located within the 30-ft. recovery zone adjacent to the roadway. This report includes detailed descriptions of the use of each form and discussion of the data input/output format. · Several ex­amples of safety improvement alternatives for selected hazards are presented to illustrate the manner in which the forms must be completed and the output is shown and interpreted.

~--Ke_y_W_o_r_d_s _R_o_a_d_S_l-. d-e--S-a_f_e_t_y_,_S_a_f_e_t_y-----,--J-8-. -0-i-st-ri-bu-t-io_n_S-ta-t-em_e_n_t ----------------------­

Priority Systems, Cost-Effectiveness, Safety Improvements.

~Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified Form DOT F 1700~7 (e-s9l

20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price

Unclassified 116 _j

PROCEDURES MANUAL

FOR

ROADSIDE HAZARD INVENTORY AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES

by

Graeme D. Weaver

Edward R. Post

and

Donald L. Woods

Research Report 11-1

Research Study 2-8-72-11

Cost-Effectiveness Priority Program

for Roadside Safety Improvements on Texas Freeways

Sponsored by

The Texas Highway Department

in Cooperation with the

U. S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

August, 1973 Revised January, 1974

TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77843

IMPLEMENTATION

The cost.:_effectiveness analysis procedure fo:r roadside safety

improvement evaluation has been developed on an ;i.llUD.ediate implementa­

tion basis. This report documents the procedures t()be applied in

conducting the physical roadside hazard inventory and reconnnending

safety improvement alternatives on Texas freeways. ·.,Immediate im­

plementation-of the material in this report is anticipated on a state­

wide basis. ·

FOREWORD

This report is one phase of Research Study No. 2-8-72-11, entitled

"Cost Effectiveness Priority Program for Roadside Safety Improvements

on Texa:s Freeways."

Special acknowledgement is given Messrs. Pat.tl R. Tutt and Edwin M.

Smith of the Texas Highway Department and Mr. Ed Kristaponis (FHWA) for

their cooperation and assistance through the developmental stages and

field testing of the program. Their suggestions were invaluable in

achieving an implementable research product.

The researchers are indebted to personnel of the Texas Highway De­

partment, particularly from three Districts: Fort Worth, Houston, and

Austin, where extensive field trials were conducted during the develop­

mental phases. Special thanks are due Messrs. J. · R. Stone, C. E. McCarty,

and Bill;ieE. Davis (Fort Worth); Messrs. Dale D. Marvel, John M. Lips­

comb, and James H. Doss (Houston); and Mr. Billy M. Schnerr (Austin) for

assisting in field trials and offering numerous suggestions to improve

the cost-effectiveness program. Appreciation is expressed to Messrs.

Larry Walker and Richard Jameson (THD Automation, Austin) for their co­

operation and assistance in adapting the cost-e':ffe;ctiveness model to the

Texas Highway Department computer equipment.

DISCLAIMER

The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are

responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein.

The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or polieies

of the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constftute a

standard, specification or regulation.

ii

SUMMARY

PROBLEM DEFINITION

Roadside safety improvement programs, like any phase of highway

construction or maintenance, must compete for limited funds. As in­

creasing emphasis is being directed toward roadside safety, it is ap­

parent that a definite need exists for methods by which administrators

may evaluate alternative safety improvements and program those to realize

the greatest return within the budget constraints of their available

roadside safety improvement funds.

The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project

20-7, Task Order 1 (3) proposed a probabilistic model to be used as a

management tool in establishing the priority for roadside safety improve­

ments. It was expected that each state would adapt the research findings

to its own specific needs and administrative structure. The overall

goal of Project 11 is to develop a formalized implementation procedure,

compatiblewith Texas Highway Department policy, to progra.Il1 roadside

safety improvements on controlled access highways based on the generalized

NCHRP 20-7 research.

This report documents the procedures developed to inventory road­

side hazards and safety illlprovement alternatiVf!S for input to a computer

program.,· Details of the computer program inclu-ding a user'· s manual are

presented in two other reports (Research Reports 11-2 and 11-3). Inter­

pretation of the cost-effectiveness program output is discussed in

Research Report 11-4.

iii.

SCOPE OF ROADSIDE INVENTORY

Accepted practice in most existing roa:ds·i.de improvement programs

has been to consider the primary and secondary recovery areas, which

would benefit approximately 85 percent of drivers encroaching the road­

side. The :inventory procedure proposed in thi.s study includes all

applicable roadside hazards located within the 30-ft lateral distance

adjacent to the outer edge of the traveled lane.

Hazards have been categorized in three major classi.ficati.ons for

purposes of inventorying: (1) point hazards, (2) longitudinal hazards,

and (3) slopes. Classification codes have been assigned to all appli.cable

hazards ..

PROCEDURE FOR CONDUCTING SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

The procedure to evaluate safety improvements for roadside hazards

comprises three related functions:

(1) conducting a detailed physical inventory of the Interstate

' highway system to identify and locate each roadside hazard,

(2) . recommending feasible safety improvement alternatives for

each hazard or for· groups of hazards, and'

(3) evaluating the recommended safety improvement alternatives

using the cost-effectiveness model.

The extremely large nutnber of hazards that must be inventori.ed and

feas.ibl~ safety improvement alternatives necessitates the use of a

systemati.c coding procedure for eventual analysi.s ,by ~tGl\lpU;t'fftt; "'JwP

forms were developed to accomplish thi.s. The Roadsi.de Hazard Inventory

form is shown in Figure S-1. Figure S-·2 illustrates the counterpart,

iv

the Roadside Hazard Improvement form.

The report includes detailed descriptions of the use of each of

these fonns. Also included is a d.i.scus:s.ion of the date input/ output

format and several examples of selected hazards to illustrate the

manner in which. the forms must be completed.

v

~- ... , ...... "nl

ROADSIDE HAZARD INVENTORY

Inventory Conducted by ____________ Pa;e __ ot_ ___ _

() '-- Check Box if Columns 5 _ Thru 24 Are to be Duplicated from Pre\floua Inventory Fo~m Mo. Yr.

0 cmJ a a ' .. Hoaar6 HumMI

UI-l ' 6 ' HIOIIW•r"""".,..

[_[JJ • • 10

CCK~ftty Cod•

O~IIKJ I H t? 13 14

C~tml Number S11c:twn No

Hazard Description •---------------------- ... -----· ---------------CLASSIFICATION

UJ--LIJ '" 14 •• , lit

ldonillkatton Ooacrlpto< Codo Code

[] ?9

Offoot Code

'-'""'' 2 Mtdlon

POINT HAZARDS

L.I-TJ ITO I :)() "tl \? J! ... !.ti 36

lltltdldft Width till Gfoulllnlj Nwnblf llto¥<1 818n.k If MediDn tftventontd on Noor Stdo Only)

LOCATION

Reference Mllepoat Odometer Reodlna ot Hazard

Milepolt at Hazard

D 17

AttotdWIQ Olr•ruoo t. WUh Mllepual 2 A~olntl Milopoot

[J~J I I 18 19 ~0 tl u ~5

ADT !Tolol Both Dolt Ohethon• IOOO'sl

- ·-···-

11 .. .,, ,., """"' Heaordl [t ...

--- ....... ,_ .. ______ -- """"';--- ---··"----·-__ .............__ __ _ 1 I

·~ 44 ·~ 4& 47 46

OwCIJ 56 5.7

Width (W)(It.)

ITJ ~8 S9

Lo~oth ILlllt.l

~Drop 1~11 Only------,

[II] ITIJ so 61 G2 e3 &4 s5

0

'2 t4GZGNS Offset,-00 (fi} llei<jht Ill. I or Depth Ill.)

LONGITUDINAL HAZA ROS (Curbs, BridQerails, Barriers,Guardrails, Ditches,and RetaininQ Walls)

r::HoiO<d Oilnt., 00 111.1:--~

ITJ· ITJ ~554 "'"

8otlnniftt ~11d

SLOPES

FRONT SLOPE

r·rr··rn ~'~ ~~~6 &totn"'"' E,d

crrJ '57 ,. ~9

llol~hl'(lt.)Of D11>th (ft.)

[I] eo ••

Width (W)(II.)

r~~--s ... .,.,. .. :=::----1

[I]al [l]sl ~.,. 58 59 60

lleglnnlnt End

.-------END TREATMENT-----. D Guardrail Only D

u u t. Not Btglnnift9 at Slruc tur• -

Salol! Treototl

2 Not BeQinnin; at Structuf4 ·­Not Sofet}l Trtoted

3 BtQ•nninQ ot Structur~ -Foil- Beam Connechon

4 8tQinniRQ at Structure­Not Full · Btom Conr.tet!Oft

r-o;.,ance "oj' (11.)--"~----,

I Not Ending ot Struehare -SGfol y Trtaled

. 2 Not Ending at Structur4 :.... Nol SG'-ty Truled

l EndtnQ .at Struct-..rt -· F"uii-Beortt COfl.ntclion

4 f.ndmq ot Str«tuu -Ne-t Ful1-8eo"' Connethon.

CD ITJ D 0 61 -62 63- .64 &5

Se;mmno End Slo~e Foe• Eroaion Code t Sllohlor Nono

?·· s.-• (lluto•llt.l

66 Stope Dlrtc lion I. Pc1dttve 2. N•o•ll••

- -- --- --- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- --- --- --- --- --- ----.2nd or BACK (Except for Level Terrain) ·

SLOPE r -·-- ·O.stonc• 0102 (ft.J --·--···---,

[TI OJ r----st .. pntu---1

[I]sl C]11 67 II 19 TO 71 72 13 74 Beginning End End

0 15

Slope Face ErotiOf" Code 1 !!li~ht or Nont

2 ~~ !Ruto>llt.)

D 16

StoPe OirecUon I. PooitiYt 2 Noaot•••

Recorrimendations: ______ ..,.._---------··---...,--------~------+-------------------------·---------·-----

Roadside Hazard Inventory Form

Figure S-1

vi

0 0

0

0 0 0

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

fotlll B (IIUG. '731

.·

ROADSIDE HAZARD IMP-ROVEMENTS Chec~ Box lf Cohunnt 5 Thru 16 . Are To Be Duplicated From Prevlou• ForM

2 3. 4

IIIIO<ll-

OTI OTI ITIIJ-[IJ II i2 Ill 14 1!1 1$

coatrol Nlllllb•r S.ctlcft """"""

r-R~r Coot o-r Collioi!MI ttl---, .-........ -·- ,.,,..,~

11 18 19 20 21 22 flrot Coot of t..;rov-ntol$1

I 2? 28 29 30

'L-..1-...1-..1.--ll I " s2 s:s J4 ....... :ss......_:se~~....,t...L,;.se.....J

lllaoril ,....,...,.,,_,

POINT HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS

m. i f/lAil~lGIO Hdtord o·· I . .__ l!J 2. Mci•• ilro<illoiloy ondlor Roloo<tfo

40 42 43 :s -•trilct ·tftlot lo sail D111Qn A RecOnstrvc:t· Cro••-~ohtooe S••• C"-move Hlotbwont, t111end t:uhJt!tl, C:;tocs..~ [t(!.l

m [g) Pfottct Hatlild with- Guorck:oil Olo>ord Not 011 CritiCot $10po)

OJ Lawol Otlstt lftl

40 42 44 4!1

[]] [~J.Ptofe.ct· H.ourd wUh Concre_te Nledior. ~rritr (CMB) CTI lR ..... or, ... ,,,,

40 42 46 47

QJ [fJ Pr:otect tiozttrd with Entf9Y AH•ftuotion Srs~em ITlJ ITJ 40 42 48 49 !50 51 52

lonoth lfll Width lfll

LONGITUDINAL HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS {g] (]]curb 40 42

llJ IZJ· &tidoeroit

0 I. Removl Gild Ro9'oilo 2. IMtoll Wofto liladlficotioft

43

O t.Aitid· 2. Soiftl-riold

43 0 I. ·IJI>orodo lo full Sofoly Standard!~

2. 111 ... loforotty (COiilplofo Box A Bolcwl 44 :S. IMtatl GuQrdroll Alono Bridgoroil Foeo

[l] 53 54

Ofhot lftl

40 4Z . 4. Oe<:k Ovtr Gop Bttwe•n Poraltel Brtdo•• and tnetall St!'O,. Bria,.,ail tc;.om.,ltte a. A Be1ow)

(2] rn Guor.droil

40 42

D t. R-i E•istlrlo Cl!olwdroil ~. IJP9f8do to full· Sofoty Standard• (Cornptole Bo• 8 Balow, if Applieoblol

43 :S. IJII.,..do to Full Sofoty SIOlldCifda and Clou- up Gap (Complete Box B Botowl 4. Cto .. -vp GOD 8ol- Eslatlnt Gvordroil !Comploto·8oJ 8 Bolowl 5. lrlatoll G!lordroH lo.Proloct $1- Nol ot Brldgo--Moy lnclu~o P01•t Hozordo (Comploll Boa 4 Bolowl

6o Afttllor b11tin9 GIIOrcbail to Brrdooroil

1. '"'loll Guanlroll at Brhioo Approoch I Comploto Box A llelowl e. tllotall G-droll Otportino ·Brodgo IComptoro Box A lltlowl 9. Sl'lfol¥ ,...ot GIIOtdrOil !'roo ·E ... ontv

~--~-------------------------------------------

f21. 141· Oilch o t ........ ,. to S<lfo Cron Sottoon L£J ~ 2. ""'lo" wllll StorM Drain 4o 42 43 :S Proloct wllll Guorrlrall !Cornoloto llt>a 'I Below)

BOX 8 (CHANGES ro EXISTING GUARDRAILS l Bo• A (INSTALL GUARDRAIL l r-talorol OIIHI (till rLott•ot Olfott IIIli r--Longthoo (It)-- I , .. ---·---ShOI'ton 1111--1

Ri_o~l or ITHIJ. .· Medtan Neor Stde

41! 46 47 48 Begin"int Ead

lilodioftiTHIJ ,., Side · .

49 tiO 51 52 .... -. E""

SLOPE IMPROVEMENTS FRONT SLOPE

r---st•oo••••~

[JJ:l CJ:l

59 60 61

IDiotonu "o;' lft) 1

40 42 43 44 ... ~ 46 47 48 49 so Sl 52 53

62 63 64 End

0 SCopaOirtction I.PoSIJiW

54 2.No<jcltivo

---

---·- --- ___.!!!_~ ~ --~ --~ --· ~.!!..,_ ~ ---- --- --- --- -2nd or BACK SLOPE

L I ! I M 6!1 M IJ7 61 IJt

[4] No Improvement Recommended 40

r--S!Mpnooa---,

C!:]:l. CI]:l. 15 !II 57 51

Bl~ End

End

! I 70 71 71 13 74 7!1

r Oiatonco •o; till---a

OJ-[J] 59 60 61 62

Blginnin~ End

HalotO MU•polt !Co!Oploto If (lllloro•t ,,..., hrv.,.t<»yl

Roadside Hazard Improvement Form

Figure S-2

vii

0 Slopo Direction I.Positi ...

63 2. NoQatiVf

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword. • .• Disclaimer.. • • • e: • • ., • •

ii. ii.

SUMMARY Problem Defini ti.on.. • • • • • • • ., • • • • • • iii

iv iv

Scope of Roadside Inventory • • • ., . • • • .. • Procedure for Conducting Safety Improvement Program

I. INTRODUCTION Problem Statement • I-1 Objectives. • • I-2

II. PROGRAM CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT Basi:e Concept • • •. • •. • • • Scope of Roadside Inventory • • • • • • • • Identification of Roadside Hazards ...... ·• Procedure for Conducting ~afety Improvement Program ~

II-1 II-3 II-5 II-7 II-9 II-9

Odometer Measurements. .. • • • Slope Measurements .. • • • • • • • • •. • • Length of Inventory Section. • • •

III. ROADSIDE HAZARD INVE~TORY Gene.ral • •. • .. • • • • • • • • Roadside Hazard Inventory Form. . • •

II-12

~ • . • • • . III-1 ~ • • • • • • III-1

Box 1--Hazard Classification and Classification (Box 1) •• Grouping Number • • •. • •. • Location (Box 1) ••

Location Information. III-4

Box 2-Point Hazards • ~ Box 3-Longitudinal Hazards •• Box 4--Slopes ••••••• ·

IV. ROADSIDE HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS General • • • • • • • • • • Roadside Hazard Improvement Form.

Box 1--Cost Information. • • Box 2--Point Hazards • • • • • Box 3--Longi.tudinal Hazards • •

Box Box

Curb. • • • • .• Bridge Rail • Guardrail •• Ditch • • • •

4--Slope Hazard. • • ~ • • 5--No Improvement Reconnnended ... •

viii

III-7 III-7

• • ~ • • • III-12 III-12 III-13

• III-14

. . •· . .

IV-1 IV-1 IV-1 IV-4 IV-5 IV-6 IV-6 IV-7 IV-9

IV-10 IV-11

TABLE OF CONTENTS, coNT.

Data Deck Arrangement • Error Messages. • • • Severi.ty Indi.ces:. • •

V. DATA INPUT/OUTPUT

Case Examples of Data Input/Output. Test .Case 1 (Bridge Piers in Median) Test Case 2 (Group Hazards irt Median). Test Case 3 (Group Hazards at Bridge) ••

REFERENCES

APPENDIX

i.x

V-1 V-4 V-9

V-10 V-10 V-10 V-11

I I INTRODUCTION

PROBLEM STATEMENT

Single vehicle accidents constitute a sizable portion of all high-

way accidents, particularly on freeways--accounting for about one half

of the fatal accidents and 40 percent of all accidents on freeways (1).

Texas accident statistics (~) revealed that 35 percent of statewide

accidents involved single vehicles striking fixed objects or running

off the roadway. The elements of roadside design that contribute heavily

··to single vehicle accident severity are obstacles suc:h as bridge abut­

ments and piers, bridge rails, utility poles, trees, drainage headwalls,

steep side slopes and guardrails.

Considerable emphasis has been placed on roadside safety improve­

ments to the extent that many highway departments maintain funded pro­

grams to reduce the roadside hazard on existing facilities. Notable

examples of such programs are the breakaway sign and luminaire programs

of the Texas Highway Departments the CURE program of the California

Division of Highways, and similar programs in Utah and Colorado.

Programs of this type generally have followed the same roadside

improvement strategy:

1. Remove roadside obstacles.

2. Move. those obstacles that cannot be removed. This includes

moving to a protected location and moving laterally.

3. Reduce the impact severity of those obstacles that cannot be

moved. This includes improvements such as breakaway devices,

turning down guardrail ends, and flattening roadside slopes.

I-1

4. Protect the driver from those obstacles that cannot be im­

proved otherwise, using attenuation or deflection devices.

This strategy would be ideal if sufficient funds were availahle to

accomplish all four steps throughout a particular highway. However, this is

seldom realized because safety improvements, like any phase of highway

construction or maintenance, must compete for limited funds. What is

lacking is a method by which administrators may evaluate alternative

safety improvements and program those to realize the greatest return

within the budget constraints of their available roadside safety im­

provement funds.

The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project

20-7, Task Order 1 (3) proposed a probabilistic model to be used as a

management tool in establishing the priority for roadside safety improve­

ments. The requirement that this research be applicable on a national

scale resulted in a high degree of generalization in the model and, there­

fore, it was·not implementable in its current form for specific needs.

It was expected that .each state would adapt .the findings of this research

to its own specific needs and administrative structure. This researcl1

has as its basic objective the adaptation of the findings of NCHRP 20-7

to meet the requirements of the Texas Highway Department.

OBJECTIVES

The overall goal of Project 11 is to develop a formalized imple­

mentation procedure, compatible with Texas Highway Department policy, to

program roadside safety improvements on freeways based on the generalized

NCHRP 20-7 research. The specific objectives within the study to achieve

I-2

the overall goal are summarized:

1. Develop a procedure to systematically inventory roadside ha.zards

existing along Texas freeways.

2. Develop a procedure to identify -appropriate measures that may be

taken to alleviate or reduce existing hazards.

3. Incorporate the above procedures into a computer program based

on the NCHRP 20-7 probabalistic cost-effectiveness model from

which may be determined a priority ranking of improvement alter­

natives to assist administrators in preparing safety improvement

programs.

4. Document the hazard inventory and improvement procedures, com­

puter program, and the general_study.

This report documents the procedures developed to inventory road~

side hazards and safety improvement alternatives. Details of the com­

puter program including a user's manual are presented in two other .reports

(Research Reports 11-2 and 11-..3). Interpretation of the cost-effec--

tiveness program output is discussed in Research Report 11-4~

I-3

II. PROGRAM CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT

BASIC CONCEPT

Every segment along a roadway has an associated degree of roadside

hazard for vehicles traveling through that segment. The hazard may be

relatively small for a flat slope free of fixed objects while on the

other hand, the hazard may be very high for a steep side slope or a

large rigid object near the edge of the roadway (3). From this, it is

seen that the degree of potential hazard is influenced by proximity to

the roadway and by the severity of resulting impact if the object is

struck. The severity can be assumed to be independent of distance, that

is, the severity associated with striking a rigid object located ten

feet from the roadway is no different than if the same object was struck

at fifty feet from the roadway. The probability of encroaching the

latter distance, however, is much smaller. Also influencing the potential

hazard is the probability that a vehicle will encroach on the roadside

at a location such that the obstacle is in the vehicle path and will be

impacted. This is a function of the traffic volume and expected encroach­

ment rate, the latter being derived empirically from research. Obviously,

a small rigid obstacle exhibits a smaller probability of being struck

than does, for example, a continuous guardrail at the same offset dis­

tance. To strike the rigid obstacle, a vehicle must leave the roadway

within a relatively small segment whereas it may collide with the guard­

rail after leaving th~ roadway anywhere along the rail length. The

severity of striking the rigid obstacle may be extremely high as is the

case for a bridge pier. On the other hand, the severity of striking the

II-1

guardrail is substantially less. Therefore, trade-offs must be con­

sidered--probability of ~pact versus severity of impact--in many

situations.

If quantitative measures can be assigned to these influencing para-

meters and costs associated with improvememt alternatives,cart similarly be

determined, cost-effectiveness techniques may be used to evaluate various

recommended safety improvements. To accomplish this, objects (hazards)

must be identified and assigned some relative degree of hazard (severity

index). Encroachment distances and frequency must be defined. Feasible

improvement alternatives must be defined for each hazard identified and

costs must be determined for the hazard as it exists and after each im­

provement. These factors may be used in the cost-effectiveness program

to evaluate the alternatives.

The cost-effectiveness methodology requires a rather comprehensive

inventory of roadside obstacles (size of obstacle, lateral placement,

severity of a collision with the obstacle, etc.). Some of these may be

identified in the office -while others can be detennined only by a field

inventory procedure. The inventory of existing roadside hazards is the

underlying key to improved cost-effectiveness because it forms the basis

of comparison for alternative recommended improvements and, hence, in­

fluences directly the relative rating of the improvement. Since the

inventory is so vital to the end product of the program, detailed pro­

cedures are required to insure that an accurate and comprehensive inventory

is made in a uniform manner throughout all regions to which the improve­

ment program is applicable (usually a District).

Since safety improvements for each hazard (or group of hazards) will

II-2

be compared to the existing hazard in the computer model, it is equally

important that detailed procedures for identifying improvements are

established and used to provide the necessary information in the re­

quired format for computer input. These two procedures form the basis

for the computer program developed. As with any computer program, in­

put data must be furnished in a precise manner. Forms have been devel­

oped, field tested and refined to accommodate data collection for both

the hazard inventory and safety improvement alternatives. These forms

and a detailed procedure of their use are discussed in later sections

of this report.

SCOPE OF ROADSIDE INVENTORY

The roadside obstacles to be inclu_ded in the inventory and the lat­

eral boundaries assumed for inventory purposes are administrative deci­

sions. Accepted practice in most existing roadside improvement programs

has been to consider the primary and secondary recovery areas (30-ft

lateral clearance) as sufficient. From available information (i), safety

improvements within this region would benefit approximately 85 percent of

drivers encroaching the roadside. The inventory procedure proposed in

this study includes all applicable roadside hazards located within the

30-ft lateral distance adjacent to the outer edge of the traveled lane.

Under a particular case involving a criti'Cal slope' inventoey:ing the 30-ft

lateral distance may be exceeded. This is discussed later in this report.

Each roadside obstacle has associated with it some degree of hazard.

However, certain obstacles such as sign posts and luminaire supports,

through the advanced technology in breakaway concepts, have been designed

II-3

such that the hazard of impact is virtually negligible. Also, the state

of technology is such that very little can be done to reduce the impact

severity below its current level. Through the breakaway program through­

out Texas, very few rigid base signs or luminaire supports exist on free­

ways and interstate highways. Therefore, by joint decision of project

personnel of the Texas Highway Department and the research staff, break­

away sign supports and luminaire supports will hot be included in the

inventory.

Other roadside obstacles are placed along freeways for operational

control which, although their presence constitutes a hazard, if

omitted would allow operational maneuversthat would produce greater

hazard. Post and cable installations placed between main lanes and

frontage roads or in the median to prohibit intentional vehicle cross­

over is an example. Similarly, median barriers and fences fall within

the same category. These obstacles will not be included in the inventory

under normal inventorying procedures unless it is desired to evaluate

the cost-effectiveness of a different type of barrier. It is highly

probable that a recently installed double flex beam median barrier would

not be removed and replaced by some ·other type of barrier; however, the

decision might be made to evaluate replacement of an older barrier with

a concrete median barrier. Provision is made in the inventory procedure

to do this. Retaining walls constitute another "necessary" hazard,

particularly on depressed urban facilities. Although provision is made

to evaluate several alternatives, it is probable that certain retaining

walls cannot be substantially changed because of geometric and right-of­

way considerations and would not be inventoried.

II-4

IDENTIFICATION OF ROADSIDE HAZARDS

Uniformity in inventory procedure and content is essential to the

operation of the cost-effectiveness computer program. Therefore, those

roadside obstacles that will be included in the inventory have been

identified and assigned an input coding system as shown in Table II-1.

Hazards are grouped by descriptive title under general identification

code designation and, where necessary, each general classification is

sub-divided into several categories with each being identified by a

descriptor code designation. This classification system permits greater

fle1eibility in recording hazards by allowing the addition of new general

categories or, more often, additional descriptor codes when "special"

or unusual hazards are encountered during the field inventory. Any

code additions would necessitate computer program modification prior to

implementation. Table II-1 includes a comprehensive list of hazards,

but it is anticipated that additional descriptor codes will be needed to

accommodate all hazards that can be found along the roadway, and provisions

for including these will be made in the development of the computer cost­

effectiveness model.

For purposes of inventorying, all hazards have been categorized in

three major classifications:

(1) point hazards

(2) longitudinal hazards

.{3) slopes

The above general classification system was selected to facilitate

recording inventory data and to organize the computer program logic.

To maintain uniformity between hazard inventory and hazard improvement

II-5

TABLE II-1

Hazard Clas .. s..ifi_eati..on Codes

111EHTIFICATitW me

~ Utility Poles

<@> Trees

~ Rigtd Signpost

<S> Rigid Base Ltllltnatre Support

05.

06.

07.

08.

Curbs

Guardrail or Median Barrier

Roadside Slope

Washout Ditch (Does not include ditch formed by intersection of front and back slopes)

<@> Culverts

<J]:;>. In 1 ets

11. Roadway Under Bridge Structure

12. Roadway Over Bridge Structure

13. Retaining Wall

<> Denotes Point flanrd

(00)

(00;

I ~~ 'l'~D~

(01) single-pole-mountea (02) double-pole-mounted (03) triple-pole-mounted (04) cantilever support (OS) overhead sign bridge

POaNT HAZARDS

(00)

(01) (02) (03)

(01) (02) (03)

(04)

(OS) (06) (07)

(01) (02) (03) (04) {05) (06)

(00)

mountable design non-mountable design less than 10 inches high barrier design greater than 10 inches high

w-section with standard past spacing (6 ft·3 in.) w-section with other than standard post spacing approach guardrail to bridge--decreased post

spacing (3 ft-1 in.) adjacent to bridge approach guardra i1 to bridge .. -pos t spacing not

decreased adjacent to bridge post and cable median fence . median barrier (CHB design or equivalent)

s·oo cut stope sod fi 11 slope . .concrete-faced cut slope· concrete-faced fill slope rubble rip-rap cut slope rubble rip-rap fill slope·

(01) headwall (or exposed end of pipe culvert) (02) gap between c•Jlverts on parallel roadways (03) sloped culvert with grate (04) sloped culvert without grate

(01) raised drop inlet (tabletop) {02) depressed drop inlet · (OJ) sloped inlet

~ (02)

<fit (03) (04)

(OS)

(06)

(00)

bridge piers

bridge abutments

open gap between parallel bridges closed gap· between parallel bridges rigid brfdge'rail--smooth and continuous construction semi-rigid bridgeraH--smooth and continuous

construction other bridgerail--penetration likely; severe snagging

likely; severe pocketing and snagging likely; or. vaulting likely

elevated gore abutment

II-6

procedures, the same classification system was used for the improvement

data input. Section III of this report presents details concerning the

formal inventory procedure and Section IV deals with the recommended im­

provement alternatives data input. The forms necessary for these input

factors are described in their respective section.

PROCEDURE FOR CONDUCTING SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

The procedure to evaluate safety improvements for roadside hazards

comprises three related functions: (1) conducting a detailed physical

inventory of the Interstate highway system to identify and locate each

roadside hazard, (2) recommending feasible safety improvement alternatives

for each hazard or for groups of hazards, and (3) evaluating the.recom­

mended safety improvement alternatives using the cost-effectiveness model.

The general procedure for the inventory and improvement recommendations

phase is discussed below.

In the inventory phase, each applicable hazard will be located

longitudinally along the highway by milepost using data input forms dis­

cussed in Section III of this report. As each hazard is located and

evaluated, recommendations for remedial action necessary for safety im­

provement will be made and this information recorded on data forms dis­

cussed in Section IV. These two data sources provide basic input infor­

mation for evaluation by the cost effectiveness computer program. It is

apparent that the quality of "the results depends to a very large degree

on the quality of the input data.

Since the recommendations for alternative safety improvements will

govern to a great extent the cost-effectiveness results; the inventory

II-7

team must include personnel having considerable experience in traffic

operations, geometric design, and maintenance. Preliminary field trials

of the inventory procedure have indicated that a four-person team repre­

sents an efficient working force, including a driver and data recorder.

The more experienced the team members, the more flexibility is afforded

to rotate duties. However, based on experience .gained during the inven­

tory field trials, the following team composition is strongly recommended:

one driver, one data recorder, and two decision-makers to recommend safety

improvement alternatives. The following procedure was found to work very

efficiently. The driver assumed the responsibility of identifying each

hazard as he drove along the highway shoulder at low speed, and stopped

adjacent to each hazard to read the odometer. All data were recorded by

one member of the team who was familiar with the hazard inventory form.

The driver called out hazard milepost and identified the hazard by natile.

These were recorded and necessary identification codes assigned. Offset

distances and other applicable data (hazard number, grouping code number,

etc.) were reco.rded while the two deci!3ion-makers were evalua~ing the

hazard situation to select improvement alternatives.

Since all data were recorded by one person, considerable time was

saved because the identification codes and necessary data for each type

of hazard (in addition to the location on the form where these da1ia must

be recorded) became memorized. It was evident that considerably less

recording errors (omissions, erroneous codes, etc.) were made when the

data recording operation was done by one person rather than rotating

throughout the inventory team.

It is emphasized that the driver must be well aware of every type

II-8

of hazard to be inventoried to avoid his bypassing hazards.

Two decision-makers are recommended to alleviate bias in improvement

alternative recommendations. It proved advantageous in many cases be­

cause opposing views for improvement alternatives were presented or

reinforcement added.

Odometer Measurements

Roadside hazards may be located in reference to existing milepost

signs with sufficient accuracy using a vehicle equipped with an odometer

capable of recording to one thousandth of a mile (approximately 5 ft).

The procedure is as follows. The odometer is zeroed at a milepost sign.

The vehicle is driven,glong the shoulder until a roadside hazard is en­

countered. The odometer reading is recorded as the front bumper is adja­

cent to the beginning (upstream end) of the hazard. Figure II-1 illus­

trates the method to locate a point hazard. If the hazard is a longitu­

dinal hazard such as a guardrail, the beginning point is located as above

and the odometer reading is again recorded when the vehicle reaches the

downstream end. The length of the longitudinal hazard is computed by the

program through subtraction. Figure II-2 illustrates how a longitudinal

hazard is located. A roadside slope is located in the same manner as a

longitudinal hazard. The eriteria used to identify a critical slope are

discussed in Section III.

Slope Measurements

Slopes of 4:1 or steeper are included in the inventory. The longitu­

dinal length of a slope is the distance between the point where the slope

becomes 4:1 and the point at the downstream end where it becomes flatter

II-9

• I o· ..J

1 ....

l l

R&ftlRA1t:e MUt Post tnvtrttory

f t t Dire9tlon .. Jnventory .. ~ •. , •.. " .

of Ko~ard: 3.08&

Rditrtrtt.l Milt -t (f(l •• ···a.Jit .•• ~.

Point Haza.rd Location and D:blensioris

Figure ti-1'

I-]f~l_O

.... :Q) :-o :-; 0 .c (/):

Ill:

Ill

IIi

I

;;~~~~~

., Q) c: 0 ...J

Q)

!111 ~

II :;_;;: Q) -o: :~ .c:. (h.

1111

ll

I p Reference Milepost

For Subse uent .·· Inventory

t t t Direction Inventory Is Progressing

Odometer Reading = 0.150 Ending Milepost = 4.150

264ft (0.05 MILES)

Odometer Reading = 0.100

Hazard

Milepost At Beginning Of Hazard = 4.1.00

-U) .....: ~ - ·e q co ·o C\1 ~ I{)

Reference Milepost

Odometer Reading = 0;009

Not to Scale

Longitudinal Hazard Location and Dimensions

Figure II-2

II-11

than 4:1, or terminates such as would be the case where the slope meets

a cross-street under a structure. The end point of a slope approaching

an overcrossing structure may be considered to be the beginning point

of the bridge rail. Figure II-3 illustrates the method of determining

the beginning and end mileposts of a roadside slope.

The steepness of all slopes should be measured to avoid omitting

slopes that appear to be flatter than 4:1 but are, in fact, steeper than

4:1. To alleviate the time-consuming operation of measuring slope

steepness by conventional surveying techniques, a device called a "slope­

ometer" was designed to pertnit rapid steepness measurement. This device

consists of a steel ball that rolls within a 6-inch r.adius groove adjacent

to a slope ratio scale. It is attached to a 3-ft rod which is placed

on the slope face and the slope ratio is read directly below the position

at which the ball comes to rest in the groove due to gravity.

This instrument may be used to quickly determine if a slope is indeed

4:1 or steeper and, hence, should be inventoried. Also, the beginning

and end points of a slope may be quickly determined by a series of measure­

ments along the slope face as shown in Figure II-3.

Length of Inventory Section

Preliminary field implementation has indicated that about 30 to 50

hazards per mile of roadway can be expected in urban facilities. Based

on time required to inventory several miles of urban freeway and on the

average number of hazards encountered, it appears that the control-section

represents a convenient length of roadway to inventory as a unit. Also,

based on an expected number of hazards, the amount of data collected in

II-12

I

tl II I

• 5:1

• 3.2:1

• 3.6:1

• 3.8:1

• 3.9:1

Slope Ratio Measurement (BB Slope-ometer) (Typ)

Slope Length Included In Inventory

Slope Length Included In Inventory

o ----'--+---'-- Beginning of Slope I 4:1

• 4.7:1

t t t Direction Inventory Is Progressing

Determination of Slope Begi.nning and End Points

Figure li-3

II-13

the average section length provides a workable unit from a computer

operations standpoint.

It is strongly recommended that a computer..!!!!!:. of·the field data

be made as.early ~possible--definitely before large amounts of data

~collected (no more than one-half day). Initial computer runs will

identify errors in data recording that can be corrected in subsequent

inventorying and permit the inventory team to determine problems that

can be avoided both in recording hazards and selecting improvement

alternatives.

II-14

lll. ROADSIDE HAZARD INVENTORY

GENERAL . .

The extretne1y larg_e number of hazards that must be inventoried.

along a·section of roadway necessitates use of a.systetnatic codingproc"-

ess for eventual analysis by computer. This can best be accomplished

through use of a detailed roadside hazard inventory form such-as shown

in Figure III-1. The inventory form was developed cooperatively by

personnel of the Texas Highway Department, Federal Highway Administration,

and the Texas Transportation In~titute.and represents the culmination-of

repeated trials and modificationsafter field implementation on existing

freeways and interstate highways irt the Fort Worth, Houston; and Aust-in

Districts.

ROADSIDE HAZARD.INVENTORY FORM

The hazard inventory form has been designed to collect data under

four categories, labeled Boxes 1 through 4. Box 1 contains hazard iden-

tification information including specific milepost location and other

general location information needed for cross-reference filing and com-

puter program operation. Space is also provided to identify the hazard

by general name in words for manual review of the fortns. Hazards have

been classified into three categories--point hazards; Box 2; longitu-

dinal hazards,· Box 3; and slopes, Box 4. Box 1 must be completed on

every form. Since a separate form is used to inventory each roadside

hazard, only one of Boxes 2, 3, or 4 will be completed on each form.

The form has been developed to permit .direct transfer of inventory

data to computer card for entry to the cost-'-e:ffectiveness program.

III-1

0

,., ...... , ....... ,31

ROADSIDE HAZARD INVENTORY

ln~entory Conducted by

[JIJJ U:=[l ~ ~ I

HlQhWar _b ..

[ l J] . . ... C:iluntv Cotle

[I [J:=H.r 1 II 1.' I' 14

Contn!'l Noft\ber

Hozord Description •--------------------------··-

CLASSIFICATION

L.LJ--l.IJ [] ;·t ,."

h:te~hUtoliOf\ Otnrtttor Oitaet CoCS. Co4e Codt t Pllil'l

2 Wtdion

POINT HAZARDS

1·1·r.J [T_r_l J m 'I ,7 3! 54 5!'} ~

M•dlon W1dth lftl GrauptnQ Numbtr tleovt 8k1n~ 1f

M&diGn \moiiJnfOFI'td

on Neor ~edt Qr.ly)

LOCATION

Reftrence Mllepo1t

Odometer Reading at Hazard

Milepost ot Hozord

of

[.J Ret0tdtAQ On!Jctum

I W11h Mtl•pll~tof

2: AQam•l M'l•po•f

r .. , .. ·I···J .. .1_·_ .. Itt 19 lO

AOT I Total Bot~ Olr•c.hons i0001

'i}

[ -r-·1 T--J - L_ ___ .L. ~I 11, ~!I

Ool•

--

u .• upt hw P\lW\1 HGJ~Udl """""'ttt!'\1 ._,,d

----------- ___ -----....___ __ _ crr::IID ITilTIJ

37 ~ 39 40 41 42 4~ 44 4;~ 46 41 4S

O~CIJ ITJ ~6 57

Width (W)(II)

LIJ ~8 ~.9'

,-Orcv Inlets Only---'-,

[~_L_[] LJ_LJ ~3 64 6'!'. .

Hotard Oftaef. D0 lft l Loft91h !Ll(lt.l HetQM (ft. } nr Depth ( h ·)

LONGITUDINAL HAZARDS (Curbs,Bridgeroils,Borriers,Guordrails,Ditches,and Retainin<J Walls)

r:llo•ord ott"'· D0 tlt.l-,

ITJ [I] 55 ~ ~'. 116

8119111ftlftO £nd

SLOPES

FRONT SLOPE

t5~~r··rr~~r ~!I 56

Se~tnrunq End

criJ 57 58 ~9

Holohl IIU or Depth 1ft)

ITJ 60 ,,

Width tWHHl

,--. -s, ........ •---, . [l]al U]sl

!!-9 60

S.Qinnirttl E od

r-----END TREATMENT-- -------- ·1

0 Guardrail Only 0 82

t. Not BtQinniftQ ot Structur~­Safety Treated

2 Not BtQinr)t"O ot Str uctur~ -Nol Sofety Treoted

3 8eglhl'ltn~ ot Struc1u,~ · Foii-Btana Con"etfiOfl

4 Beoin~1no ot Structure -Not Fun·· 8eom CoPn~.t•on

r--· Oi&tanot:e "0114

Ut.)-- .. --.. --,

I Not Endtf\-Q r.t Stn.aet~u1 -Safety 'Trf!oted

2: Not End•ng at Stru:::ture­Not Saf~ty Trtdted

3 E. tHhttQ at Str ~J<C ture -Full- Beam Coonttht)n

4 f.ndmq at Struetl#f! ..

NM Full-B•om Conn.chon

CD liJ lJ.-. 61 62 &., fi4

0 60

BeQ!nnln"' [n<J Stope Foce Erot1on Code I Sllght or No11e

2 S.V•r-tt (Autt.•lft)

Slopt Dtrtctlcn

r. Potltl"' 2 NtoothJI

r--- -- --- --·-- -- --- ---- -- ----··- . --2nd or BACK (Except for Level Terrain)

SLOPE r--·-· - . s .. epn.u· --·-· l

[IJ:1 [I]sl 67 e.e &9 70

B•Qinmnv End

1 .. O•ttonet "o; tft) --.-1

[lJ [J] 11 n·

Btg•nmnq

LJ '~ Slopl! foce

E ros•oo ·cod• I ),IH}M or Notte

2 ~11.vere {Rutt,.lft 1

[] 1G

J.lop~ Ouectlun

I Potihv• ? Nt~qot;...,e

Recommendations: -------------------·-------·------------- -··---··-·---··--------·

Roadside Hazard Inventory Form

Figure III-1

III-2

N

X 0 Ill

Only those data within the numbered spaces in each box will be entered

on computer cards. The number below each space denotes the column num­

ber on the computer card. Any unnumbered spaces in a box (ex. "hazard

description11 or "odometer reading" in Box 1) are included in the form

for descriptive purposes or computational purposes and will not be key­

punched. The former facilitates manual cross-referencing of information

or category filing while the latter organizes data collection for form

completion at a later date (ex. in the office).

Each hazard inventory form constitutes a single computer card data

input source. The format ha:;> been simplified as much as possible to

assist the key~punch operator in transferring the data to cards. Wherever

possible, data spaces have been located in a straight line reading from

left to right. A circle appears in the left margin adjacent to each row

of data spaces. Since only certain rows of spaces must be key-punched

from each form, and these rows may differ between consecutive forms, a

check mark (I) ~be placed in the circle adjacent to the appropriate

completed row of spaces. The key-punch operator may use the check mark

to quickly locate the data to be key-punched from that form. Two of

the circles ·adjacent to Box 1 contain pre-printed check marks because

the data in these two rows of spaces ~ be key-punched from every

form. Across the top of Box 1 appears the statement; "Check Box if

Columns 5 thru 24 are to be Duplicated from Previous Inventory Form."

It can be expected that columns 5 through 24 will contain identical in­

formation throughout a substantial length of roadway during inventorying.

A new hazard number will be assigned to each individual hazard as the

inventory progresses, therefore, columns 1 through·4 caunot be duplicate-d.

III-3

The automatic duplicating feature on a key-punch machine can complete

columns 5 through 24 more rapidly than the person completing the inventory

form, and this check box is provided so that he does not have to complete

these boxes each time he fills. out an inventory form. He has only to

· assign a new hazard number (columns 1-4) as each hazard is encountered

and check the duplication box. The complete row of data spaces (columns

1 through 24) should be filled in for the first inventory form completed

a·t the beginning of each day or inventory section, so that this informa­

tion is available in each package of inventory forms that the key-punch

ope·rator receives.

It is eJ:Ilphasi~ed that a check mark must be placed in a circle along

·the left margin adjacent to any row of data spaces inwhich entries are

made •. J!. th~ check mark is omitted, the key-punch operator may overlook

certain data. Each data space contains information pertinent to a par­

ticular function in the computer program, and therefore, each numbered

space must be completed in a prescribed manner to avoid rejection by

the computer program. of all.data £!!that fo~.

Box 1--Ha.zard Classifi.cati-on and Locati.on · Information·

Contained in this category are general information from which the

hazard may be located by highway number, county, control number, andt

section number. These four location designations pennit not only infor­

mation retrieval by hazard location ranging from general·(county) to

specific (control-section), but provide a means whereby a large number

of inventory forms may be sorted and classified by the computer for a

variety of analyses using selected location designation to specify needed

data inp~t source.

III-4

The hazard number (columns 1""'4) is assigned consecutively throughout

the inventory section, beginning with number 0001. No two 'hazards within

the same inventory length may be assigned the same hazard number. If

additional hazards are inventoried after the initial inventory (or, if

one was omitted) a new number must be assigned to the omitted hazard. ,

The form may be inserted at the appropriate place within a sequence of

inventory forms (say, arranged according to increasing milepost) even

though the hazard numbering sequence is thus non-consecutive.

Space is supplied for a three-digit highway number (columns 5-7) ..

No prefixes are used in recording the highway number. For example,

Interstate Highway 10 would be recorded.as 010, and Interstate Highway

620 (loop) would be coded as 620. · A problem will arise in coding high­

ways carrying the same route number but having East or West designation

such as 620E or 620W which start at a bifurcation. In situations such as

this, one highway must be assigned a "dunnny" inventory highway number (such

as 999 or 998, etc.) that does not conflict with an existinghighway num­

ber in the state (or another dummy route number already used). Since the

computer output will list the "dummy" number, cross-reference filing will

be necessary to identify the "dunnny" route number at a later date.

The county codes (columns 8-10) are listed in Table III-1 which agrees

with the standard Texas Highway Department alphabetical-numerical designation.

The control and sectibn number identification, used by the Texas

Highway Department, generally is used more widely than the county or

highw~ay number. To facilitate cross-referencing hazard inventory, forms

to on-site location, space is supplied to record both control number

(columns 11...,.14:) and section number (columns 15 and 16). These data

III-5

TABLE·· tft~l COUN'l'Y CODF.:S

Co. County Dist. Co. County Diot. Co. Countr l>ist. Co. Cotmty Dist.

!!£.:. Nnmc ~ No. Nrune No. No. Name ~ No. Nwnc No. - _,..._...,.. -·~

1 Anderson 10 65 Donley 25 129 Karnes' 16· 192 .Reagan 7

2 Andrews 6. 66 Kene<lY 21 1~0 Kau~n 1(3 .193 . lteai 22

3 Anr,cl:lna 11 67 Duval . 21 131 Kendall :ts 194· .. Red.· Ri·ver 1

4 Aransas 16 68 Eastland 23· 66 'Kenedy 21 ·19!? Reeves 6

5 Archer 3 69 Ector 6 132 Ken.t a 196 R,cfugio 16

6 Armstrong 4 70 Edwards 22 133 Kerr. 15 197 Roberts.· 4

7 Atascosa JS 71 Ellis 10 134 Kimble 7 ;t98 Robertson 17

8 Austin 12 72 El Paso 24. ·135 Ktn:g·. ;25' .).99 Roclwall 18

9 :Bailey 5 73 Erath ~ 1~6 'kiililceY 22 200 R\lnnels 7

10 Bandera 15 74 Falls 9 137 Kieberg 1() 20.i Rusk 10

11 Rat>trop 14 75 Fannin i '138 Knox· 25 202 Sabine 11

12 Baylor 3 76 Fayette.·· 13 139 Lamar· .1 200:· San Augu'stine 11

13 Bee 16 77 Fisher 8 140 Lamb 5 ~04 ~n Jacinto 11

14 Bell 9 78 Floyd· 5 1.1 La.mpa$,as 23 ?P.5 San Patricio 16

15 Bexar 15 79 Foard .. 25 '14? IaSaile 15 206. San Saba 23

16 Blanco 14 60 Fort Bend 12 143 Lavaca 1~ 207 Schleicher 7

17 Borden 8 81 Franklin 1 1~ Lee 14 208 Scurry 8

18 Bosque 9 82 Freestone 17 14:$ Leon 17 209 Shackelford 8

19 Bowie 19 83 Frio 15 146 Liberty ._20 2l0 Shelby 11

20 Brazoria 12 84 Gaines 5 147 Lim:estone 9' 211 Sherman 4

21 Brazos 17 85 Galveston 12 148 Lipscomb 4 212 Sinith 10

22 Brewster 24 86 Garza 5 149 Liv~·Of1k 16 213 Som~rvel1 2

23 Briscoe 25 87 Gillespie 14 150 p .. f1UO ],4 214 S'ta.rr 21

24 Brooks 21 88 Glasscock 7 lSI Loy:ing 6 215 Stephens 23

25 Brovn 23 89 Goliad 16 152 Lubbock 5 216 Sterling 7

26 Burleson 17 90 Gonzales 13 153 Lynp. 5 217 Stonewall 8

27 Burnet 14 91 Gray 4 154 Madisor:l 17. 218 Sutton 1

28 Caldwell 14 92 Grayson·. 1 155 Marion 19 219 Swisher !)

29 Calhoun 13 93 Gregg 10 156 Martin 6 220 Tarrant 2

30 Callahan 8 94 Grimes·. 17 157 Mason 14' 221 Taylor 8

31 Carr.eron 21 95 Guadalupe 15 158 Hatagorda 12 222 Terr~ll 6

32 Camp 19 96 Hale 5 159 N~ve.rick 22 223 Terry 5

33 Carson 4 97 Hall 25 160 HcCulloch 23 224 Throckmorton 3

34 Cass 19 98 Hamilton 9 161 McLenn-an 9 225 TitUE; 19

35 Castro 5 99 Hansford 4 J..62 McMullen 15 226 Tom Green 7

36 Chambers 20 100 Hardeman 25 163 J.tedina 15 227 Travis 14

37 Cherokee 10 101 Hardin 20 164 Menard 7 228 Trinity 11

38 Childress 25 102 Harris 12 165 Midland 6 229 Tyler 20

39 Clay 3 103 Harrison 19 166 Milam 17 230 Upshur 19

40 Cochrnn 5 104 H~rtley 4 167 Mills 23 231 Upton 6

41 Coke 7 105 Haskell 8 168 Mit'chell 8 232 Uvalde 22

42 Coleman 23 106 Hays 14 169 Montague 3 233 Val Verde 22

43 Collin 18 107 Hemphill 4 170 Montgomery 12 234 Van Zandt 10

44 Collingnworth 25 108 Henderson 10 171 Moore 4 235 Victoria 13

45 Colorado 13 109 Hidalgo 21 172 Morris 19 236 Walker 17

46 Comal 15 110 Hill 9 173 l-iotley 25 237 Waller 12

47 Comanche 23 111 Hockley 5 174 Nacogd.oches 11 238 ·Ward 6

48 Cot·cLo 7 112 Hood 2 175 Navarro 18 239 Wanhington 17

49 Cooke 3 113 Hopl{ins 1 176 Newt or) 20 240 Webb 21

50 Coryell 9 114. Houston 11 177 Nolan 8 241 Wharton 13

51 Cottle ?5 115 Howard 8 178 Nueces 113 242 Wheeler 25

52 Crane 6 116 Hudspeth 24 179 Och11tree 4 243 Wichita 3

53 Crockf>tt 7 117 Hunt 1 180 Oldham 4 244 Wilbarger 3

54 Cronby 5 118 Hu.tchinnon 4 181 Orange 20 24.5 Willacy 21

55 Culhcrnou 24. 119 Irion 7 182 Palo Pinto 2 . ~4G Willio.mson 14

5G Dallwn 4 120 Jack 2 183 Panola 19 247 Wilnon 15

57 Dallas 18 1?1 Jackson 13 184 Parker 2 24.8 Winkler 6

58 J)awnou ~) 12? Jasper 20 185 l'armer 5 248 Wiae 2

59 DN\f Gml lh 4 125 Jeff Davia .. ~4 18G Pecos 6 250 Wood 10

r.o l>f•lta ] 124 Jcfferaon ~0 107 Polk 11 ~51. Yoakum 5

Gl Dt·utcw to 12!) Jim Jl()eg 21 180 Potter 4 25?. Young s 62 DeWitt 13 l?G Jim W(!llB 1G 189 Prcaic\io ?4 253 ~apata 21

63 Diclr.Pnn ~·!J 127 Jolmnon 2 190. ~ai'nu 1 254 ~~avaJa 22

G4 D11Tlln1 t 22 1~0 Jones 8 Hn Handall 4

III-6

constitute a principal sorting key for computer retrieval of specific

roadway sectio.ns for ~nalysis, the omission of which will automatically

terminate program execution.

Two other information sources necessary for program execution are

included in the top row of Box 1; the recording direction (column 17)

and the total ADT on the facility (columns 18-20). The direction in

which the inventory is being conducted (with or against increasing mile­

post) must be specified to direct _the program to the proper routine. Th.e

ADT :is used within the program in the probability of encroachment routine.

The date (columns 21-24) is included for cross-reference purposes and for

later estimates of inventory costs.

Classification (Box 1)--This information (columns 25-36) is vital to

the computer program for several ~easons. It provides the key to

direct the program to perform certain analytical operations through

information recorded in columns 29-36. The identification and descrip­

tor codes (columns 25-28) identify the type of hazard from which the

severity index is assigned.

Grouping Number--Of particular importance to the operation of the pro-

gram is the grouping number. A 11 gtoup" of hazards represents any two OI:'

more hazards in close proximity that are related to each other either by

proximity or by interdependence in combined severity. For example, a

guardrail protecting a point hazard on a critical slope constitutes a group

of three hazards. As long as the guardrail is installed, the two hazards

behind it cannot be impacted by the vehicle, yet they tnus t be included in

the group inventory if one of the alternative improvements is to remove the

III-7

guardrail. The grouping number provides the on,ly key .. to the pr0gratn

that more than a single hazard is to be considered. ·Therefore, if an

improvement can affect any other hazard, that hazard ll1U,St be included

in the grouping number. The only type of ha?ard that is not considered

part of a group is a single point hazard. Figure 1!1.,..2 is used to

illustrate the use of the grouping.number. It is emphasized that if

the grouping number is omitted (or if a hazard is omitted from a group)

the program does not consider the improvement effects on related

hazards.

The series of hazards located in the median (Figure III-2) represents

a grouping consisting of five individual hazards: (1) the guardrail,

(2) critical slope, (3) cluster of three trees considered to be a point

hazard with peripheral dimensions, (4) a raised drop inlet, and (5) a

cluster of five trees again considered as a point hazard •. Each of these

five hazards would be assigned an individual ha~ard number and all would

be assigned the same grouping number.

The offset code (column 29, Figure III-1) musthe the same for all

hazards in a grouping. The grouping code is used at .most overcrossing

structures where a typical group would include approach guardrail,

the bridge rail, departing guardrail, and a slope at each end of the

structure. These hazards normally exist both on the rj.ght side and on

the median side. A separate grouping number is assigned to the group

of hazards on each side (right side and median side) of the travel

lanes.

A second point of interest is illustrated in Figure III-2. Many

times two or three individual point hazards will be located close together.

III-8

.....

TRAFFIC. FLOW

L 26 1(AVG)

60' MEDIAN

(SEVERE RUTS)

3.(): I FRONT SLOPE 4.2:1 BACK SLOPE

- 20'

RAISED INLET

!580.021 II

101

l:eo·020 -23'

!580.010 2.8= I FRONT SLOPE

3.9:1 BACK SLOPE

TRAFFIC FLOW (INVENTORY SIDE)

t ADT:tl36,000 (TOTAL)

I S80.005 ( HAZARD MILEPOST)

kiO'....J

Grouping of Hazards in Median

Figure III-2

III-9

When these are ·encountered, the hazards may be inventoried as a single

poi-q.t haz~~d having dimensio~s of an imaginary box around their periphery.

It is recommended that bridge piers be inventoried in this manner (Figure

III-3) because a vehicle cannot pass between adjacent piers. Therefore,

in effect, the individual piers act as a rectangular point hazard as

shown in Figure III-3. No grouping number would be assigned in this case.

Judgment must be used in clustering point hazards as a single hazard, but

a realistic criterion is that it.may be assumed to act as a single point

hazard if a vehicle cannot pass between any two hazards.

Also ·included in the classification data block is space to record

· the median width. Two methods may be used to inventory hazards within

the median. The whole median may be inventoried, regardless of its

width, as the inventory ~s progressing along one set of main lane.e.

Where this may be desirable for narrow medians, it becomes impractical

for wide medians on rural sections where median width.may exceed 100 ft.

The second method involves inventorying just the 30-ft width of the median

adjacent to the main lanes (near side) in the direction of inventory. If

the median is inventoried across its full width as the inventory progresse.s

along one set of main lanes, the median width must be recorded in columns

30-32. The program determines from this whether or not the hazard may

be impacted from both directions of traffic flow. On narrow medians, it

is recommended that this method be used. If the median is inventoried

on only the near side from each set of travel lanes, the median width

data are not needed· and colt.unns- 30 ..... 32 are left blank or 'zeroes may be· entered.

III-10

60'· MEQtAN (FLAT SLOPES)

~ TRAFFIC FLOW

TEST CASE I

l••o,.•.t

TRAFFIC FLOW (INVENTORY SIDE)

. . 1fit AtlT = 1!50,000 (TOTAl)

Closely-Spaced I:tazards Considered as a Single Point Hazard

Figure III...t3

III-11

Location (Box 1}--All hazards are located in the field by milepost

using the thousandth reading odometer as discussed previously in this

report. When inventorying in the direction of increasing milepost,

the milepost at the hazard may be entered directly in eolum.ns 37-42

or 43-48 with no computation required by simply recording the ref­

erence milepost in columns 37-39 and the odometer reading in columns

40-42 if the odometer is zeroed at each milepost. If the inventory

is progressing against the milepost system, subtraction must be

made on the form to compute the hazard milepost. Space is provided

to record the reference milepost and the odometer reading at the

hazard. The difference between these twovalues is recorded in the

numbered data spaces.

It should be noted that only the beginning hazard milepost is re­

quired for point hazards. Both beginning and end hazard milepost must

be recorded for longitudinal and slope hazards, the length being computed

by the computer program by subtraction of the two values.

It is again emphasized tha't Box 1 ~ be completed on each· inventory

form regardless of the category into which the hazard is assigned (Box

2, 3, or 4) •

Box 2--Point Hazards

The code 1 in column 52 designates that the hazard is a point hazard.

With the exception of drop inlets, only hazard offset (columns 54-55),

width (columns 56-57), and length (columns 58-59) are required in Box 2.

All dimensions are recorded to the nearest foot. In the case of a raised

drop inlet (table top design) the height must be recorded (columns 60-62)

III-12

to the nearest tenth foot. For a depressed.drop inlet, depth must be

similarly recorded in columns 63-65. These data are necessary to assign

different severity indices for various heights or depths of inlets.

Box 3--Longitudinal Hazards

Hazards assigned to this category include curbs, bridge rails, median

barriers, guardrails, washout ditches, and retaining walls, and are so iden­

tified by the code 2 in column 52. Length of a longitudinal hazard is com­

puted within the program from the beginning and end milepost recorded in Box

1. Offset distance at the beginning and end of the longitudinal hazard are

recorded in columns 53-54 respectively. In many cases, both offset dis­

tances will be identical because the hazard is located parallel to the road­

way; however, provision must be made for the exception and both offsets must

be recorded. All dimensions for offset and width (columns 60:-61) are re­

corded to the nearest foot. Height or depth (columns 57-59) must be re­

corded to the nearest tenth foot for guardrail, curbs, and ditches.

Columns 62 and 63 pertain to guardrail only and identify end

conditions an.d safety treatment. Co;I.umn 62 describes the b~ginning end;

column 63 pertains to the downstream end. Four codes for each are pro­

vided, the sixteen combinations of which describe all possible guardrail

installations. ·A guardrail may (1) be isolated (protecting a point haz­

ard, a slope, or combination) and not connected at either end to a bridge

or other structure, (2) be located at the approach to a structure, or

(3) be located at the downstream end of a structure. Isolated guardrail

may be safety treated including post spacing and end treatment in accord­

ance with current accepted safety specifications, or it may not satisfy

these specifications (not safety treated). Guardrail connections at a

III-13

bridge or other st1nscture are classified as "full-beam connection" or

"not full-beam connection.u A full-beam connection is defined as one

transmitting continuous rail strength through the "eight-bolt" connection

or other connections.assumed by the Texas Highway Department equally accept­

able. All one-bolt connections, unconnected guardrail (short gap between

rail and structure) and other such connections are classified as nnot

full-beam.u Thus, an isolated guardrail installation over 150 ft in

length and having current post spacing specified for safety and turned

down ends would be coded as a 1 (column 62), 1 (column 63). An approach

guardrail with beginning point safety treated, but connecting to a bridge

wingwall with a one-bolt connection would be a 1, 4 in columns 62, 63

respectively.

Guardrail height should be measured in all cases (columns 57-59).

Also, each existing guardrail installation should be critically examined

to determine if it is, in fact, protecting·an object from impact for the

11-degree encroachment angle assumed in· tlu~ ·model (See Reference 3). The

guardrail installation may·meet all safety·requi~ements yet be located

such that an encroaching~vehicle could pa,sa either end'and impact the

object which the guardrail was intended to protect. This problem is

especially prevalent where short sections of guardrail are installed to

protect a point hazard,·or at bridge approaches where a vehicle· could

travel behind the guard'rail.: ending up on a critical slope.

Box 4--Slopes

Slopes of 4:1 or steeper both in the median or on the right of the

travel lanes are included in the inventory and categorized as such by a

III-14

code 3 in column 52. Offset distance (columns 53-56)-m.ust be specified

for both ends of the slope. The length of slope (see Figure II-:-3, Section

II) is the distance between the point where the slope becomes 4:1 and the

point at the downstream end where it_becomes flatter than 4:1 or terminates

such as would be the case where the slope meets a cross .... street under a

structure. Slope steepness is recorded to the nearest tenth. Two asswnp~

tions are made within the program to compute the hazard index and the

program keys on the value of slope steepness to select one of the two

subroutines. This feature can govern the lateral di.stance that must be

inventoried for a slope hazard as discussed below:.

If the steepness is less than 3.5:1, the program assumes that the

vehicle can recover TN'ithin a lateral travel distance of 30 ft. For

slopes 3.5:1 or steeper, the assumption is made that the vehicle cannot

be saf·ely returned to the Toadway and thS;t it will travel to the toe of

the slope. Therefore, hazards located beyond the toe of slope must be

included if the sum of the offset distance to the slope, n0 (columns

53-54) and the distance from the toe of slope to the hazard is 30 ft or

less. (See Case 3, Figure III-4).

To facilitate measurement of slope distances witho.ut elaborate

surveying equipment, the distance, n1, (columns 61-64) is measured. This

measurement is the length along the slope face from the hinge point to

the toe of slope. Horizontal distance is computed within the. program.

Space is provided (column 65) to record the degree of erosion on

the slope face. In most cases, the code 1 (slight or no erosion) will be

used, particularly if erosion cuts are present due.to a recent rainfall

and normal maintenance would be expected to repair slopes. However, if

III-15

CASE 2

FRONT SLOPE (NEGATIVE SLOPE)

4: I OR STEEPER

BACK SLOPE (POSITIVE SLOPE)

~~~--~------30'----------~

~0

CASE 3

T

ALL HAZARDS LOCATE,D WITHIN Do+X UNTtL 30' TOTAL IS REACHED AAE INVENTORIED

Roadside Slope Configurations Included in Inventory

Figure III-4

III-16

erosion is severe (code 2) this fact should be noted. The program in­

crea,ses the severity index accordin~ly for badly eroded slopes.

The severity associated with slope traversal, other than vehicle

rollover on a steep front slope, is actually depe ... 1dent on the vehicle g­

forces experienced as the vehicle travels through the region at the toe

of slope. The combination of front and back slope and ditch configuration,

therefore, influence the severity. To quantify this, the steepness of

both front and back slope must be recorded. Box 4 provides space to re­

cord similar data for both. The second slope may be either a back slope

or level terrain such as would be encountered at the toe of a fill section

adjacent to a service road. The slope direction is used to key the com-

puter program to various subroutines for analysis purpose. The slope

direction convention is that used in roadway alignment--downward (fill

section) is negative, upward (cut section) is positive. Level terrain

at the bottom of a fill section is coded as a positive slope (Figure

III-4). The steepness for a level terrain (columns 67-70) and distance

n2

(columns 71-74) should be recorded by a digit "9'' in each space

which is interpreted by the program as a level slope.

III-17

IV. ROADSIDE HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS

GENERAL

The manner in which improvement alternative information is input to

the program is equally as important as the inventory data input. A ,:form,

compatible to\ the inventory form was developed to accomplish this (Figure

IV-1). The form has undergone considerable field trial, particularly in

the Houston and Austin Districts.

ROADSIDE HAZARD IMPROVEMENT FORM

The roadside hazard improvement form has been designed to provide a

system whereby feasible safety improvements for each category of hazard

can be coded and evaluated in the cost-effectiveness model. Also included

are cost data associated with the improvement selected. The format of

the form is similar to that of the hazard inventory form and the general

discussion of the left-margin circles, hazard dimensions and hazard lo­

cation data boxes also applies to the improvement form.

Box 1--Cost Information

The cost-effectiveness model operates on the principle of severity­

cost relationship of the existing hazard compared to the same relation­

ship in its improved state. Therefore, costs must be assigned to both

conditions. Costs are defined as those which will be borne by the Texas

Highway Department. They do not include vehicle damage or personal in­

jury costs incurred in a collision.

The "first cost of improvements" (columns 17-22) represents the

initial lump-sum net cost associated with incorporating the improvement.

IV-1

0 0

0

0

0 0 0

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Fw111 8 IAUG. '731

ROADSIDE ·HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS. Ch•ck Boa If Columns 5 Thru 16 Are To Be Duplicated From PreviOus Form

I I I I I ITIJ ITIJ ITIIJ-CIJ .............. I 2 3 4 ' 6 7 8 I 10 II 12 '' 14 Ia .. """'"-- HlQIMaJ Nlllllber Coullty(',ode Coftlrol NuMber Seclicll .........

r-Repolr Coot per Calllololt ctl--., r:--Nor-' '......_ i.,,,---, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

1718192021 22 u 24 25 28 27 28 21 10 ,. '52" M 3538!7118

Fnt COlt of · IMprov...,tntol$1 Hoaar<l ._. .... ., .. ....,_. --..

POINT HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS

[[] rn At ... iato tlaaar<l 0'·"-..... 2. Make Breoll.-y Oadlor _ ...... 40 42 43 3. lllconatruct Inlet to Sar. Dtoion

4. ReeOMiruct eroo.-Or ...... Sp- ,...,_. Hlodwotta • E•l<!nd OJI-1, ~, Etc.)

m [g) Prollct Haa;,;.. _with Guardrail (Hazard Not 011 Critical Slope) CD I.Giwal Oflaot lfll

40 42 44 45

[IJ ~ Protect Hazard with Concrete U.diGn llor~r CCJoiSI ITJ~.~~tero~.Offlllltfll 40 42 ... 47

[I] [il Protect Hozard with E-oy Attonucitian· Sy~ ITIJ [I] CD 40 42 48 49 50 51 52 5154

lenath lftl Width lftl OffMtlftl

LONGITUDINAL HAZARD lMPROVEME,.TS

[lJ QJcurb D I. Rt~Mve and RotrHe 2 .. 1Mtall WIHI9t Madltlcetloll

40 42 43

lii (g) lrlclgorail o~-llltld 2. Senll-rltW

o I. u,irlide lo Full Satoi, Standards t. Mowo Loterelly lt:olllplato 8011 A Below)

43 44 S. lltltall Guar*all Alane &rld..,all Faeo 40 42 4. - .,.... G ........... POJOIIII &rldOM ............ Silotte 8ri411f011 ·~ .. A ..... ,

[l] ~-d•ail D l - £11iotl119 Guardrail 2. ~ to Full Satett S-rn IC....,..to Bol8 Below, it Applicable)

40 42 43 3. Upfra41 to F~ll Satet, Stondardl and Clost- up G"'t I Complete Boa 8 llotowl 4. Cl011-up Clap 8- Ealslillf Gvanlroll (Complete 8011 8 Below) 5. loltall Guaf<l•ait to Protoc:t st.,.. Not at 8ridoe--llla1 ""'"'"' Peillt Hoaardl l~te Boa A lllowl 6. Atlcllar Elliatiolt Gvarftll to &ridoeroH 7. tnetotl Gol....,all ot Bridoe Approach t OlmPioll Boa A Bolowl .. a INtel! a-••• Dtpwtillt &ridt• tCooltlilto Boa A I!Olowl I. Salet• T-1 Guoof4roll frM·End Otllv

[l] lA] Ditch 0 t • ......,.,. to Sate ero .. Sectian -2. Reptoeo with Slar111 Droitl

40 42 43 3. Protect with Guardrail !Cornptoto llol A 8otowl

Boa A (INSTALL GUARDRAIL) BOX 8 (CHANGES TO EXISTING GUARDRAILS)

rLoterol Ollaot IIIli rLall•ol Of!Mt cfll-, .-LIIIfllltn Cft)---1 r---SIIottlft '"'----.,

Aightor~ ::-~ [[[HID ITIHJTI .. edioft Ne• Side Sida

45* 47 48 49 50 5I 52 ~3 54 55 56 57 56 59 60 61 6Z 63 64 eo,;"'""' End ......... End ......... End 8o4iMillt End

SLOPE IMPROVEMENTS FRONT SLOPE.

rttaaard Offill O.lltl.., r--SII"'tM .. ----., ,Oio-•"o,'"llll(

[3] [I}-C[] CJ:l [!]:1 ITJ-0] 0 Stope Ditlctiooo 1.-li ..

40 42 43 44 45 * 47 48 49 so 5I 52 53 54 2 ....... ; ..

1--- --__.!!_""'!'!!__ ~ --~ -- .;.!!'!__ --_!!!iN!!__ ~ --- --- --- ---. -2nd or 8ACK SLOPE

[I] No 40

r---Stotpnlll----., r Dlatanco -o; (fl)--,

[D:l C!]:l [[]-[I] 5551 57 5I ~9 60 61 6Z .......... £1141 llooiMillt End

........... End

I I I ! I I I I I I ! I I I Hotard (ll;topolt l~to II Dill- F- 111-toryl

64 &5 .. .., .. " 70 71 72 73 74 75

lmprovemtat Recommeftdell

Roadside Hazard Improvement Form

Figure IV-1

IV-2

0 St- DiNetioA I.Potitl ..

" t.Neglltive

I

N

It may represent a cost of removal if simple removal was the recommended safe­

ty improvement. Where installation of guardrail was the recommended improve­

ment, it would represent the total cost associated with this installation.

Repair costs per collision (excluding vehicle repair costs and personal

injury costs) must be estimated both for the existing hazard (columns 23-26)

and the reconnnended improvement (columns 27-30). Either may be zero, depending

on the particular hazard. For example, repair cost per collision incurred

by a collision of a vehicle and a bridge pier could be zero unless the col­

lision involved a large truck and the pier was se-verely damaged structurally.

The improvement cost, had protection by a barrel attenuation device been

reconnnended, would be the expected replacement costs for the damaged barrel

system after collision. Conversely, the hazard repair cost for a rigid

sign post may be complete replacement cost of the sign, whereas a recommendation

of "removal" would reduce the expected improvement repair cost to zero since

future collision would be impossible at that location.

Normal maintenance costs include those maintenance costs for the hazard

in its existing state and those estimated for the improved state. As in the

case of repair costs, either could be zero. If the recommended improvement

was removal, the "improvement normal maintenance costs" would be zero.

In all cost data spaces, zero should be entered where applicable rather

than merely leaving t:he space blank. This also acts as a check system to

avoid overlooking data spaces. All data spaces in Box 1 must be completed on

each hazard improvement form (spaces 5 through 16 may be duplicated by checking

appropriate circle) to avoid rejection by the computer program. Each line of

data checked should be completed in. full unless otherwise noted.

IV-3

Box 2--Point Hazards

A code 1 in column 40 signifies that the improvement applies to a

point hazard. Four improvement alternatives are available with the

appropriate code entered in column 42.

(1) Alleviate Hazard (Code 1, Column 42) which includes removal,

making the hazard breakaway, reconstruction of the hazard

to a traversable design. The four subdivisions are

identified by a code in column 43.

(2) Protect Hazard with Guardrail (Code 2·, Column 42). This code

may be used for any point hazard that is not located on

a c-ritical slope or for a hazard that is not itself a

critical slope. When guardrail is reconnnended, the lat­

eral offset must be specified in columns 44-45.

(3) Protect Hazard with Concrete Median Barrier (Code 3, Column 42).

A concrete median barrier may be reconunended for either

the median location or on the right side. If the barrier

is placed ~n the median, no offse~ distance need be spec-:­

ified since the dimensions relative to the hazard are

built into the computer program. If the barrier is recom­

mended for right-side placement, the offset distance

(columns 46..;.47) must be specified. The computer program

assumes a 35-ft length of median barrier both·upstream

and downstream of the point hazard. This includes a 25-

ft section of end treatment. Therefore, length need not

be specified on the improvement form.

(4) Protect Hazard with Energy Attenuation System (Code 4, Column 42).

IV-4

When this improvement is recommended, length (columns 48-

50), width (columns 51-52) and offset distance (columns

53-54) must be specified. If, for example, a barrel atten­

uation system is recommended to protect a median bridge

pier, the length of _only one barrel system is specified.

The program determines if two systems are indeed required

(one at each end of the piers) to protect the piers from

both directions of traffic flow. The total length of hazard

and barrel system(s) is computed within the program.

Box 3--Longitudinal Hazards

A code 2 in column 40 identifies the improvement as a longitudinal

improvement. Improvement alternatives are provided for four types of

longitudinal hazards:

(1) curb (Code 1, Column 42)

(2) bridge rail (Code 2, Column 42)

(3) guardrail (Code 3, Column 42)

(4) ditch (Code 4, Colu1,11n 42)

each having several sub-categories as denoted by a code in column 43.

In certain sub-categories, ~ompletion of Box A or Box B is required.

These data spaces need to be. completed only when the appropriate instruc­

tion appears adjacent to the selected improvement alternative on the im­

provement form. Box A pertains only to installation of a longitudinal

improvement where none existed previously such as the installation of

new guardrail or lateral relocation of a bridge rail if the bridge i.s

widened. When only minor modifications are made to existing longitudinal

hazards (examples: lengthening, shortening, or closing up gaps between

IV-5

existing guardrail sections), Box B must be completed. It should be

noted that a guardrail may be lengthened (Box B) in three ways: (1)

adding guardrail to the beginning end, (2) adding guardrail to the down­

stream end, or (3) adding length to both ends (columns 53-58). Similarly,

guardrail may be shortened in the same ways (columns 59-64). Gaps between

guardrail sections may be closed up by lengthening either the upstream

or downstream section by the gap length.

Curb--Two improvement alternatives are provided for curbs each being

identified by a code in column 43.

Bridge rail--Four improvement alternatives are provided (column 44) for

each of two bridge rail types (column 43). "Upgrade to full safety

standards" .(Code 1, Colunin 44) is interpreted to include all safety im­

provements necessary to bring the existing rail up to the highest current

safety standards. This may include only minor anchorage modification or

it may include complete rep~acement of existing rail with a new rail

system. The costs associated with the improvement will reflect the degree

of construction necessary.

If the reconunendation is made to move the rail laterally (Code 2,

Colmnn 44) bridge widening would be necessary. Again, costs will reflect

the degree of construction necessary to accomplish this alternative. As

noted on the improvement form, Box A must be completed to designate the

offset distance for the proposed bridge rail.

Continuation of guardrail across a bridge rail face (Code 3, Column

44) represents a safety improvement that is being incorporated on many

bridges. This feature provides continued beam strength across the bridge

in addition to reduced severity of collision with the concrete bridge

IV-6

rail face.

Although it constitutes rather major reconstruction, provision is

made to evaluate the sa,fety improvement of decking over the gap between

parallel bridges (code 4, _column 43). Box A must pe completed if this

alternative is selected.

Guardrail--Nine safety improvement alternatives are provided for guard­

rail hazards, each identified by a code number in column 43 under the

guardrail general code 2,3 in column 40 and 42 respectively.

In most instances, guardrail will be inventor:i.ed·as a part of a

grouping because it invariably is installed to protect s0111e other hazard,

either a point hazard or a critical slope. Therefore, care must be taken

in the improvement recommendation to insure that all hazards within that

group are accounted for in any recommendation involving guardrail removal.

Indiscriminant removal of guardrail will expose hazards located behind

it (and therefore previously inaccessible to vehicle impact) so that

they now become potential hazards.

Guardrail installation procedures according to the Texas Highway

Design procedures are incorporated into the computer program. Therefore,

when new guardrail is recommended, its placement and minimum length to

protect point hazards or at bridge ends will be in accordance with these

specifications. The minimum length of guardrail installation is 150 ft not

including safety treatment at the ends and required overlap on the down­

stream end of the hazard.

Removal of existing guardrcdl is accomplished by using a code 1 in

column 43. Since the improvement form is keyed to the inventory form by

hazard number, no dimensions are required on the improvement form.

IV-7

Full safety standards for guardrail include safety treatment of ends,

current post spacing (6 ft-3 in.) and height in accordance with latest

safety specifications and full-beam conne~tions at bridge ends. If this

recommendation is selected, a code 2 is placed in column 43. Where addi­

tional length must be added to provide the 150-ft minimum allowable length,

Box B must be completed. This code is not used when closure of short

gaps is recommended; a separate code (code 3) is used for this purpose.

When gap closure is required in addition to upgrading (post-spacing,

end treatment, etc.), a code 3 is placed in column 43 and Box B is com­

pleted.

Guardrail at bridge ends and at other locations are coded separately

to facilitate coding improvement alternatives that either recur frequently

or are unique to certain problems concerning guardrail. Code 5 pertains

to the individual case of installation of guardrail .to protect a .critical

slope that is not associated with a bridge structure, or to protect a

point hazard at any location. Codes 6 through 9 apply to improvements of

gua:r;drail located at a bridge. When only the anch_ora,ge connection of

guardrail at the bridge is recommended (no,other upgrading of the guard­

rail is necessary, or reconnnended) a code 6 is used in column 43. To

recommend installation of guardrail (where none exists a:t the time of

inventory) at a bridge approach or at the downstream end of a bridge, a

code 7 or 8 is used respectively in column 43. In all cases where in­

stallation of new guardrail is recommended, it is assUined that the new

installation will comply with the highest current safety specifications

and costs must reflect this.

IV-8

A separate code is provided.(code 9) to reconnnend safety treatment

of only the free-end portion of guardrail at either end of a structure.

It is noted that this code applies only to the free end of guardrail be­

ginning or terminating at a structure, not to isolated guardrail protecting

a point hazard or a slope that is not associated with a structure. Use of

the code 9 implies that only the end point of the ra.il will be safety

treated (turned down, buried, anchored, etc.) and that no changes will be

made to existi.ng post spacing other than perhaps at the treated section.

The longitudinal hazard category overlaps with the slope hazard

category in one respect. If the safety recommendation for an unprotected

critical slope is that guardrail should be installed, the hazard inventory

form and improvement form are somewhat incompatible with respect to the

location on the form where data are recorded. In this particular case,

the originalhazard is recorded in the "slope" category (Box 4 on the

inventory form) and the improvement information is recorded in the

"longitudinal hazard" category (Box 3) on the improvement form.

Ditch--Three options are available for. safety improV'ements resommended

for ditches. Ditches, under the longitudinal hazard category, include

both longitudinally oriented ditches caused by erosion.(washout) or de­

signed ditches to carry runoff down fill slopes such as are often found

near overpassing structures. Ditches formed by the intersection of road­

side slopes are not included in this category and arenot coded as an

individual hazard. Instead, provision to evaluate the severity of this

feature is incorporated in the front and back slope categories in Box

4 on both the inventory and the improvement form.

IV-9

Box 4--Slope Hazard

Three possible reconnn.endations may be made with respect to slopes.

First, the slope may be left in its existing state without guardrail

protection. Guardrails may be reconunended to protect the slope. Finally,

a critical slope may be regraded to a flatter cross-section that an

errant vehicle can safely traverse. The latter recommendation of course

constitutes rather major reconstruction and can be accomplished only if

sufficient right-of-way exists. However, it is emphasized that slope

flattening and drainage inlet changes may constitute a very cost-effec­

tive safety improvement and should not be overlooked as a feasible im­

provement alternative. Investigation of this alternative through the

cost-effectiveness model alleviates personal bias toward this improve­

ment alternative.

The hazard associated wi.th traversing a slope is dependent pri­

marily upon two factors: the steepness of the front slope, and the

relative difference between steepness of front and back slopes. The

cro~s-section of the ditch_formed between front and back slopes also

influences the vehicle g-forces; however, the severity indices incor­

porated in the computer program are based on a vee ditch.

Therefore, in reconnnending a slope improvement, both front slope

steepness (columns 46-49) and back slope steepness (columns 55-58)

must be specified unless the back slope is, in fact, level terrain such

as would be encountered adjacent to a service road at the toe of a fill

section. The distance, n1

, (columns 50-53) must be estimated because

until detailed cross-section data are prepared, the toe-of-slope for the

IV-10

newly proposed slope will not be known. The distance, n2, for the second

slope also must be estimated.

The lateral offset of the toe-of-slope at the beginning and end of

the slope is computed within the computer program by trigonometric rela~

tionships using the hazard offset, n0

, slope steepness, and distance n1 •

A linear relationship is then assumed for the toe'~-of-slope offset between

the beginning and end positions from which the critical slope steepness

between expected operations (3.5:1) is determined.

It is probable that the beginning and end points of the slope will

change after the slope is flattened. Therefore, these data must be

entered in columns 64-75 for this recommendation only. If guardrail is

recommended as a safety improvement, the slope end points will remain

unchanged and the columns 64-75 may be left blank.

Box 5--No Improvement Recommended

The computer program is developed on a one-for-one relationship

between hazard inventory and hazard improvement. That is, for each

hazard inventori·ed, there must be a corresponding improvement recommen­

dation even if the recommendation is that "no improvement" is recommended.

Provision for this is made through a code 4 in column 40 on the improve­

ment form. Some examples are used to illustrate the use of this code.

Many times a grouping of hazards is inventoried in which guardrail

is protecting one or more hazards. Each individual hazard within the

grouping must be inventoried. If the safety improvement recommendation

for the whole grouping is that only the guardrail be upgraded to full

safety standards and nothing be done to the hazards behind the guardrail,

IV-11

the improvement form for each of the hazards behind the guardrail would

be merely a code 4 in column 40.

From strictly a safety improvement viewpoint, it would appear un­

necessary to even inventory hazards located behind a guardrail if it was

obvious that removal of the guardrail was not a viable alternative.

However, it is strongly reconnnended that every hazard be inventoried. If,

at a later date, the guardrail is removed, the grouping evaluation would

be incomplete because no data would be available concerning objects located

behind it. Also, reasons other than safety evaluation may require a

detailed inventory of particular hazard types along a section of highway

and retrieval programs could be adapted to locate the information from

the inventory data.

The "no improvement" code is not intended to be used as a "catch-all"

for these hazards which appear to have no feasible improvement possibility.

It is provided to reduce the field time required in completing the forms

while maintaining the computer program requirements. that an improvement

form ~e provided for each ha~ard form. If no improvement form is pro­

vided, an error message will be printed out on the data output.

It is noted that the basic requirement is that an improvement form

must be provided for each hazard inventory form. It should be noted

also that more than one improvement form may be provided for each hazard

inventory form. The arrangement of data input and data output that cnn

be expected is discussed in Section V of this report.

IV-12

V. DATA INPUT/OUTPUT

DATA DEC.K ARRANGEMENT

Correct.type, location, and amount of data on an inventory or im-

provement formare imperative to successful computer operation. It is

equally important that the data deck be correctly oriented including

insertion of "key" cards after the improvement card or between successive

inventory/improvement groups of cards within a grouping as illustrated in

Figure V-1.

Three key cards (sometimes referred to as "kicker" cards) are used

to signify the end of a inventory/improvement set; the end of an inven-

tory/improvement set within a grouping; and the end of the entire data

block being input to the computer. As illustrated in Figure V--1, a key

card having the digit 1 in column 80 is used to separate each set of

hazard inventory and its improvements from the next successive set within

a grouping. · A key card having a digit 2 in column 80 is used to signify

the end of all improvements either with a single hazard- or-the end of a . .

grouping. A code 3 in column 80 signifies the end of all input data

after which execution terminates.

The computer program is capable of evaluating a grouping containing

a maximum of 15 hazards and 4 improvement alternatives per hazard. Four

alternatives were ample in all cases during field testing; in only rare

instances were more than two alternatives required.

In any hazard/improvetnent set, the improvement card (or cards) follows

immediately behind the hazard card to which it applies. _ A maximum of four

improvements is allowed per hazard. Particular care must be exercised in

V-1

1 N

DATA INPUT ILLUSTRATION

fl ou" 11-rl"E: s

t.~~o . ot..~ t-'P.t-\~~1

s'tJ P~o"~ 11v€s ~ \tt' €~ tJ p.

p.\..1

\~ G ·1'~~tJ zllflos E:tl'f lit- -

3 \4~ .o-J€t/t ~af'B .·

2 ,.... . ~

·NOTES:

I. MAXIMUM NUMBER OF HAZARDS PER GROUP : 15

2. MAXIMUM NUMBER OF IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES:: 4 PER HAZARD

3. NUMBER OF ·IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES MUST BE EQUAL FOR EACH HAZARD IN GROUP

Arrangement of Data Cards

F~gure V-1

arranging the sequence of improvement cards within a grouping. The pro­

gram evaluates the improvements in a prescribed sequence. For example,

using Figure V-1 to illustrate; in the grouping of 3 hazards with 2 im­

provement alternatives, the evaluatlon procedure for. the first improvement

considers improvetnent alternative 1 with the first hazard, alternative_ 1

with the second hazard and alternative 1 with the t:hird hazard as a single

grouping evaluation. A grouping cost effectiveness is computed. The

process is then repeated using improvement alternative 2 with each of the

three hazards and a grouping cost effectiveness isagain computed. There­

fore, compatible alternatives must be in the proper.sequence throughout

the grouping deck arrangement.

Since a grouping costo:..effectiveness is computed in the above described

manner, it should be noted that within each grouping, the same number of

improvement alternatives must be specified for each hazard, even if for

one hazard in the grouping, a "No Improvement" alternative is recommended.

For example, if in a three-hazard grouping, two improvement alternatives

are reconnn.ended, t"!o improvement alternat~ve cardsmust be insert~d behind

each of the three hazard inventory cards. If two improvement alternative

cards were inserted for the first two hazards and only one for the third

hazard, the omission error would be detected during: data. reading, and

no computer execution would occur on either of the twd;:.tmprovement

alternatives even though the error applied only to the second improve-

ment alternative~ An error message, therefore, 't-lould be printed on

the output data and no grouping cost-effectiveness "¥tould be computed

for either improvement alternative.

V-3

ERROR MESSAGES

Sinc'e computer program execution is highly dependent on precise data

input both in type and location, error messages have been incorporated

into the program to "flagn input errors. Due to the complexity of the

program and extensive branching within subroutines from several key data

sources, it is expected that errors will occur. To avoid program termina-

tion (which would normally occur for each data error), the program has

been developed to bypass the erroneous data, print out an e,rror message,

and continue with the next data input.

Thirty-six error messages have been incorporated. They are listed

in Table V-1• In most cases, the message is self-explanatory. Each error

message is identified on the data output by reference number. The list

of messages is printed out for each computer run. Also printed out is

the location within the program or subroutine in which the data error

affected the program execution. The message indicates the type of error

and provides direction to remedy the data error.

'l'he·program will automatically terminate if 100 error messages are

printed during any run.

A message, "Hazard- Improvement Non Cost-Effective," will appear in

the data output. This is not an error message, and is not included in

the 100-maximum count for automatic program termination. It indicates

that the recommended improvement produces, . for all intents and purposes,

no safety benefit over the hazard currently existing. Under certain cir-

cumstanee~ it indicates that the recommended improvement in faet produces -·

a more hazardous situation than the existing one. The message may be

V-4

obtained under two circumstances as shown below.·

The simplified cost-effectiveness ratio is detennined by:

' Cost Cost-Effectiveness = H _ H

B A where HA = Hazard Index after Improvement

HB = Hazard Index before Improvement (Existing)

If HA is great~r than HB' the denominator becomes negative.. This means

that the rec.onnnended alternative, is in fact, more hazardous than the

existing situation. Obviously, it is impractical to incur costs to pro-

duce a more critical situation than currently exists; therefore, the flag

message "Hazard Improvement Not Cost-Effective" is printed out when this

occurs and the cost-effectiveness ratio is not computed.

When HA.is only slightly less than HB' the denominator becomes

very small numerically, hence the cost-effectiveness ratio becomes very

large. Based on statistical logic, a lower cut-off level has been in-

corporated into the model such that when the numerical value of HB· - H A

is less than 0.02, the flag message is printed out and the cost-effective-

ness ratio is not computed. The 0.02 level indicates a 55-percent prob-

ability of no hazard reduction.

A second message, "No Improvement Hazard Grouping" merely indicates

that for that particular hazard, the recommended safety improvement was

"No Improvement Recommended" (code 4, column 40, improvement form). It is

not counted as an error message for program termination.

If a data error occurs within a grouping, a group cost-effectiveness

cannot be determined. Therefore, an error message will be printed out

and the message, "End Group" will also appear where the grouping cost- ·

effectiveness value would normally appear. The message "Group" denotes

that the cost-effectiveness value represents a total grouping value.

V-5

MESSAGE SUBROUTINES NAME

1 INVTRY

2 PTRAZ

3 PTHAZ,· LGHAZ

4 DITCH

5 RAILNG

6 HAZARD

7 PTHAZ, LGHAZ

8

9 PT:RAIL

10

11 CURB

12 BRIDGE

13 BRIDGE

14 RAIL

15 RAIL6

16

17 SLOPE!

TABLE V-1

ERROR OR FLAG MESSAGES

DESCRIPTION OF MESSAGE

End milepost at hazard not specified

Unmatched point hazard and improvement codes

Non-existing improvement classification specified in col 42 of improvement form

Non-existing ditch improvement code classification

Guardrail installation not necessary--- Re-examine roadway group hazard

Non-existing hazard classification specified in column 52 of inventory fom

Non-existing point hazard improvement code (column 40)

Available for later use

Distance between guardrail and obstacle less than 2.0 ft

Available for later use

Non-existing curb improvement class. Specified in col 43 o~ improvement form

Non-existing bridgerail imprvmnt class. Specified in col 43 of improvement form

Non-existing bridgerail imprvmnt class. Sp,ecified in col 44 of improvement form

Non-existing guardrail imprvmnt class. Specified in col 43 of improvement form

Guardrail end-treatment adjacent to bridge incor­rectly specified

Available for later use

Non-existing slope direction class. Specified on inventory fonn

V-6

MESSAGE NAME

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

TABLE V-1

ERROR OR FLAG MESSAGES, Continued

SUBROUTINES

RAILS

ZERO,. DITCH

PTHAZ, LGHAZ

ZERO

MAIN PROGRAM

INVTRY

INSTGR, RAILING

INSTGR

INVTRY

INVTRY

RAILl

MAIN PROGRAM

INVTRY

HAZARD

HAZARD

DESCRIPTION OF MESSAGE

No slope recommendation specified on improvement form

Programming error---vehicle not pennitted to penetrate guardrail

No improvement needed-~ flat slopes and /or lateral offset greater than 30 ft.

Program error in subroutine zero--refer to flow charts

Available for later use

Stop computer prog.ram---100 error or flag messages

Unmatched hazard numbers on inventory and improve­ment form '

Guardrail installation not necessary-- re-examine roadway site

No improvement hazard exposed---- re.,...examine road­way site

End of data and program

Unequal number of improvement alternatives per hazard in group

Program error in subroutine raill-- refer to flow charts

Hazard improvement not cost-effective.

Hazards on right side and left side of roadway cannot be grouped together

Guardrail end treatment code not specified on inventory fonn

Guardrail end treatment code not defined--value greater than 4

V-7

TABLE V-1

ERROR OR FLAG MESSAGES~ Continued

MESSAGE SUBROUTINES NAME

34 HAZARD··

35 HAZARD

36 HAZARD

DESCRIPTION OF MESSAGE

Improvement costs not specified

Guardrail hazard maintenance costs not specified

Guardrail improvement maintenance costs not specified

V-8

SEVERITY· INDICES

The severi.ty index is. the relative meas.ure of an obstacle's. ability

to produce a given outcome on the vehicle and/or occupants·when a collison

occurs. The severity indices selected for the NCHRP 20-7 Project repre­

sented an "average" set of values based on limited data and were, to a

large degree, determined subjectively. To adapt the NCHRP 20-7 results

to the needs of the Texas Highway Department, a tVIo-part questionnaire

·was developed to subjectively determine severity indices for connnon types

of .roadside hazards expected in the state. The first part of the question­

naire ·consisted of ninety-eight hazard comparison statements to which art

"agree" or "disagree" response was requested. The second part consisted

of an evaluation of fifty-two roadside hazards and conditions; the re­

spondent was re.que~ted to numerically rate the potential hazard of each

on a one-to--ten rating scale.

The questionnaire was administered to individuals· employed by the

State of Texas in professions related to highway safety. These professions

included the areas of. design, operations, nia;intenance, law enforcement,

and administration. The results were evaluated and a base severity index

on the one--to-ten scale was determined.

The cost-effectiveness ratio is extremely sensitive to the severity

index. A severity index reduction from 10 to B·represents a much greater

safety improvement than a reduction from 5 to 3 although the numerical

reduction is the same. Therefore, to provide a relative weighting system,

cost values supplied by the Texas Highway Department were used and the

one-to-ten scale was expanded to a one-to-one-hundred scale according to

V-9

the following relationship:

0 < SIB < 4, SIA = SIB

4 < SIB < 7, SIA = 7SIB- 24

7 < SIB < 10, SIA = 25SIB - 150

where

SIB = Base Severity Index (one-to-ten scale)

SIA .... Adjusted Severity Index (one-to-one...;.hundred scale)

The severity indices used in the computer model represent the adjusted

severity indices. A detailed explanation of the adjustment methodology

is presented in Report 11;...3, Documentation Manual.

CASE EXAMPLES OF DATA INPUT/OUTPUT

Three hypoth~tical sets of inventory and improvem.ent data input are

presented to illustrate the procedure for use of the two data forms.

Typical output data are shown for each example.

Test Case l, (Bridge Piers in Median)

The location and geometry of the set of three bridge piers assumed

to be a rectangular point hazard (3 ft X 32 ft) are shown in Figure V-2.

Typical hazard inventory data for this point hazard are shown in Figure

V-3 with four possible improvement recommendations listed in the "Recom­

mendations" section at the bottom of the form. Figures V-4 through V-7

illustrate the manner in which improvement forms would be completed to

evaluate each of the four improvement recommendations. Figure V-8 pre­

sents the cost effectiveness data output obtained from the program for

these four recommendations.

V-10

Test Case 2 . (Group Hazards in Median)

Figure V-9 illustrates the location of five hazards in a grouping.

Each cluster of trees is considered to be a point hazard within the group.

The group a.lso includes a guardrail, a critical slope, and a raised drop

inlet. Each hazard within the group is inventoried individually. Although

several alternatives exist, only two are discussed for illustrative

purposes. Figures V-10 through V-24 illustrate the data input .to deter­

mine the group cost-effectiveness value for the two s~lected improvement

alternatives. Figure V-25 presents cost-effectiveness data output for

Test Case 2.

Test Case 3 (Group Hazards at Bridge)

Figure V-26 illustrates a typical grouping of hazards that may be

encountered at an overcrossing structure. The grouping considered in­

cludes an approach guardrail, a sidewalk curb, a bridge rail, and a

slope at each end of the bridge. These hazards along the right side of

the travel lane constitute a grouping. Similar hazards along the median

· side of the same travel lanes would be coded as a different grouping;. It

should be noted that the subject group contains all hazards associated

with the structure both upstream from, on, and downstream from the bridge.

To illustrate, only one improvement alternative is specified for each

hazard in the grouping and a total grouping cost-effectiveness value is

determined. The process would be duplicated for other selected improve­

ment alternatives. Figures V-27 through V-36 illustrate the input data.

Figure V-37 presents cost-effectiveness data output for Test Case 3.

V-11

) ..... , •••• ·I

..tl ....

' TRAFFIC FLO w

60' MEDIAN ""

.(FLAT SLOPES)

r--251 .... ,..

~'OIA. BRIDGE PIERS

r···· 161.008 ~l~i~l~j: ~~l~iH

321 C)

I t·=~=·=·l

L'r11 f5_161.002

L!AZARD MILEPOST -27' ~

TEST·CASE I

I·· o •• '·~

TRAFFIC FLOW (INVENTORY SIDE)

11h ADT= 150,000 (TOTAL)

SCALE (FT) lO 20 30

Location of Hazards~-Bridge Piers in Median (Test Case 1)

Figure V-2

V-12

'otm A (Auu '71 l

ROADSIDE HAZARD INVENTORY

0 Check Box if Cohi_i!'__!!~-~ Thru 2~ Are to be Duplicated from Previous Inventory Form

0

[OJ)~ ~J:il [~~_ij] ~~.LZJ I a ' 4 "· 6 • t t<l II 11 13 14 Haaord Muntn.r HiQhWII)' Numbet County Coctt Conhol Numbtr S•c linn No

_Ho_z_ord ~''.~ion ·~!fti"J-e_ ___ !i!;!;:!: __ ____ _ CLASSIFICATION LOCATION

~Lll}---t_()JL] ?'\ "'" :·r ?.l't

lcltnt•fiC4tt~ Dt•crlpfOf'

Codo Cado

,. Olhot Codo 1 .. Rlfltl 2 MtdiOn

POINT HAZARDS

r<?I•l~J ITrlJ lO \1 \(' ,, ~4 ~5 :56

Median Wldlll \Ill GI'OUpino Numbo• llto~tt Stante 1f Mtdmn ~n.,.ntoflld on Nttor Stde Only)

Refer•nct Mlltpott Odometer Rtadlh\1 at Hazard

Milepost at Hotard

17

~~rdtnQ Dnttton t. With Mllepuat 2 AQOiftll . Mllepolt

·~ 18 II 20

ADT CTolol 8olh rnruttoh& 1000'•)

Mo. Yr.

f01717kti 21 22 u 2<4

Oillo

·--

e~ •• .,, .... I'Ginl ...... _,

1:11<1

-- ___..___, _..;_-

f7 ~ I/Iololl21 ,, 3! 19· 40 41 4! ~s 44 4~ 46 4r 48

r ~-Drill> lnlott O..ty-:--·· .• 1

[f'~@ ~~ 0 [1] [g~ GO Gl $2' 83 ~4 8!\

0

~1 ~.. ~~

Ho1ard Offt•t, ·o0tft )

FRONT SLOPE

[jJ rB""t~C]' 51

2nd or BACK SLOPE

,. '!5.7 Wldlh (Wltlll

$fl ~g

LonQih (L)Ifll

89 70

End

Hol9hl Ut.) or Ooplh (I!J

4 8~inn1nQ ot Str~_c-tur~­Not F"U- S•am Conn'fet•on

Hazard Inventory--Test Case 1

Figure V-3

V-13

0 n

I Not Eru:lin9 at Struc t~r• -Softly Troalod

2 Not Enchnt ~t Structure -Not Softly Troalod

0 •• Slopo Dlreellon t PoaUiv• 2.N•ta11vo

It)

)(

0 CD

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

For111 8 (AUG. '731

ROADSIDE HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS. Check Box If Columna 5 Thru 18 Are To Be Ouptlcoted Frona Previous For•

loi/IOiol I 2 3 4 ~~~~~~

8 , 10

c-~w co.M

~ II 12 .IS M 18 .1$

Coelrel lloiMMr SeciiM .......

r--_., COit ,.. c- ttJ--, r-::--• ..... ._ ctJ,,---, 12121Siol 0101 IOioiOIOI lololoiOI rololoiOI kiloloell

17 18 It 20 "21 22 Flrot Coot of lonprov......,• t$1

27 28 29 30 31:S2JIM :SSM!TII .....,_, ....... ......,_

POINT HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS

rn m AIIIViot~ llea«d IZ] ··-2. Make .... _, aMior Allocate 42 43 ll. -otruet 111111 to Sat. Oooitft

4. --truct Cra .. -Or....,..S.._ 1""'- -lls.E•tend Cul-t, G<Mt,Dc.l

m 40

[]] 40

[;'1 Protect llelard with -droil I..!::J tllelord Not 011 Critical Slope!

42

~ Protect Hazard with Cc!ftcroto Modi.., aGrrilr ICM&l

42

[i} Prolttl Ho-d with f'*tY Atte...,.lion Syolelll

42

OJ Llltorol Olfoot (fll

44 45

o:J Llltoral OfiMI (It)

... 47

ITJJ ..... , 50 hMihlftl

[]] 51 . 52

Widtlo Uti

GITUDINAL HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS

40

~ 40 42

[g) ~ Guordrail

40 42

[l] [II Oitth

40 42

0 1.-..,. Retrede 2. IMtall W ..... Modlfieatialo

43

0 I. \INf4dll te Full Safotr Stendardl 2. - L-, (CoMpl ... 8al A Balow!

44 1 flmoll lluordrllil Ala.. Bridttnil Fa .. 4. - - Clop Be!Witll Poral_ltl .,.

I ! I 707172737475

Othet lftl

D IS

Improvement Alternative No. 1--Test Case 1 (Remove Piers, Replace with Single Span Bridge)

Figure V-4

V-14

SloPIOirlclioft ...... ,; .. z. NOQOtioM

I

N

0 0

0

~ 0 0

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

fGtM 8 IAUG. '751

ROADSIDE HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS. Check Box If Columns 5 Thru 16 Are To Be Duplicated From Previous Form

lo!JlolOI I 2 :S 4 ..._d......., 5 8 ., ....,.,_ ......... 8 • 10

c-tr cooie

~ II II 13 14 Ill IS

CoMrel -· .. S!tellaoo.......,

r-"-" ceot ,., c-1$1---, .-....... ........_ ,.,,.,---, ll?IC21JI6Iol01 lbloloiDI k'l4~401 IOiciDIOI lol"tltlol t7ill82102t22

Firoi Coot of ,...,...._.. t$l ·2:s24aa u••z•so 31:S~:S:SM :SIIMS?M

Hourd --· Moaard ,__....

POINT HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS m m ... IIvia .. Hazard 0 ·-~ ' 2. Mai&a··-•- aodlar "-locote

40 42 43 3. -truct lalet to SOfe ~ 4. RecOMtruct Crooo-Dr-..,. sra-1- -II&. E•ten4 Cui"''• Grodo, Etc.)

m [g) PfOiecl Ho~ard wit~ G-drail (Hazard Not "" Critical Slope) IZI3) Loloral Ofhtl (ftl

40 42 44 45

II] ~ Protect Ha~ard witll C...Crete Medioa larrilr ICMII ITJ ....,_ OffMI (fl)

40 42 ... 47

[[] ~ PrOtect Ho-d wtlll [MrVJ AlltftUOiiall S,O- CIIJ CD 40 42 ... 49 50 51 52

llnatlllfl) Widtll lUI

GITUDINAL HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS

40

[i] 40

(g) rn Guardrail

40 42

[~] [!}Ditcll 40 42

0 I, Uporodo to Fttll 5ofltr Sloftclar ... 2. MM L-tr (COollpllll h A llllowl

44 S. IMtoll U.Vdrail "''""' BridQefail Face 4. o_.t. 0... G"" let- PoroiiOI lrldf

BOX 8 (CHANGES TO EXISTING GUARDRAILS)

rl.atlrol OftHtlhl-, r--u,..tlttli lftl-· --~

~ 40 42 ..,

...... [ad

2nd or BACK SLOPE----

ITIH:IIJ

I ! I

56 57 58 Eod

7071721'37475

ITJ ·s !14

oth•t lftl

Improvement Alternative No. 2--Test Case 1 (Protect Piers with Guardrail)

Figure V-5

V-15

0 u

51 ..... -liolt ll'lolitioe" 2 NoQetn..

"'

0 0-

0

0 (?!

0

0 0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

,_ 8 (AUG. '731

ROADSIDE HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS. Chec• Box If Columns 5 Thru 16 Are To Be Duttllcated FrOM Previous Form

lo lolzi6Htlzl A-..r.s~/n.ffet/1 (;M.B ~.,..., ....

5 I 7

HIQiwlor-8 9 10

. eou.t, COde II II 13 14 IS II CelliNI_.., Slctiooo .......

r-"-ir Cott ..., COIIillon ctJ---, .---........ ._ (f!,;t---,

loiO It LStoltJI lol dlOiol ldlololOI loiOicldl lol45t01 171819202122

Firat Coat of llllprov-ntal$1 231425211 2728830 31 32 33 S4 3S ,. 37 18

Honrd ._, llo.. ...,._. POINT HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS m [[] Alleviota ttozard D l.lle-

. 2. lloU lraak- -lor llelocale 40 42 43 3. l'facMatruct lftlat to SGta Ooa9>

4. -.otruct c ..... -OraiJMite Sp_l..._ -ls.Eol<i•d 011..,1, -.oc.l

OJ [g) Protact Hazard with G-droil IHorard Not Oft CritlcGI Slopo) [I] t..atara1 Offset lftl

40 42 44 45

[l] (J] Protoet Hazard with Conereta Modion llorr;.r 11*81 ~t..otaratOIIMtlftl 40 42 ... 47

[[] [1] Protect Hozord with E-tr Attonuotion Syl- ITIJ ITJ 40 42 48 49 50 5I 52

Lenolhlftl Width lftl

GITUDINAL HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS

~ (2J Bridgeroil

40 42

[g) [~] Guardrail

40 42

[l] [I] Oitch

40 42

0 1. R- - Reorode 2. "'"'"" ••• Modlflcetiotl

43

D I. \lJittede to Full Sofetw S._orda

2. - l.oteroUJ leo...,tota 8ott A llelowl 44 1 ....,.. Gooordroil llloao Bridooroil Face

80X 8 (CHANGES TO EXISTING GUARDRAILS)

r'-""'"' Olhot '"'' r-L""''""" cttl--1

ITIHIIJ 56 57 58

End

.-St•ap---, CIJ:l [!]:·1

41 49

-- ..!!!_ -- _.._...

Ead

I ! I 707172737475

CD 5354

Othet lttl

Improvement Alternative No. 3--Test Case 1 (Protect Piers with Concrete Median Barrier)

Figure V-6

V-16

D 13

~ Ddclioll •. ,.,.tl .. 2. NaoeiM

I

0 0

0

0

0 0 (0'

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

,_ 8 !AUG. '731

ROADSIDE HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS Check Box If Columns 5 Thru 16 Are To Be Duplicated FrOift Previous Form

k'IIIOiol llllllol ~ ~ Ai!xs-l~~,els t 3 4 ! 8 T 8 t ~ h ~ B M ~- •

Haaord- ...._, - c-tv Code Cotllllll -liM Sectiool....,..

10 It? 1510 lolcl 17 18 It 210 21 22

Firet Coot of 1-C!¥-Rit t$1

r-~~epc~~r co.t.., c- ttl--,

lol Ololol 10 IJ'Iol?ll 23242!. 27288:!0

Muetd ...,_,

POINT HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS

m m Ali..10t1 Hazard

40 42 D 1.111-

2. Mallo .....,_ ianollor Relocate 43 1 Reeollotruct lftlot lo Sale 0.0.,.

.---- ....._ ,.,,...__, IOiolo!OI IOIIIolol 31»3354 35H3718

Woaord .__

4. Rec-truct Cran-Or ........ SWI_I..._ -III,E•,.··d CIJIWrt, GN*.Eic.l

[[] 00 Proleel Huard with G1111rclroll !Hazard Not Oft Critical Slope) OJ lotoral Olhtt tfll

40 42 44 4~

[]] [JJ Protect Ho.zard with Cohcrelo MtdiGII lorrler Iaiii o=J .......... Olftll lfll

40 42 48 47

[]] [1] Protect Hazard wilh E-gy Atlenuotiolt Sye- ~ IZal ~ 40 42 .. 49 ~ 51 52

llll<ltltlftl Width lftl

GITUDINAL HAZARD ·IMPROVEMENTS

0 I. RIMoo• - RltN.dt 2. IMtaH Wtilo- Modiflcotloll

43

[2] [lJ lltidooroil o·· 2.

40 42 44 1 4.

(gJ [~] Guardroil

40 42

[2J [!}Ditch

40 42

BOX B (CHANGES TO EXISTING GUARDRAILS l

[3] 40 44 45.

-- ----!!..~ ~--2ftd or BACK SLOPE

r-L ... thlft 1111--J

ITIHIIJ Eod

End

! I 70 71 72 73. 74 75

59 EO 61

a.tiMino

$354

Ofhot IIU

62 63 64 Eftd

Improvement Alternative No. 4--Test Case 1 (Install Barrel Attenuation System)

Figure V-7

V-17

0 "

$1opeDdctiolt ,_,.,; .. 2.Ntgotive

., ~

H A

HAZARD I DENT DESC ENO

1 NO CODE CODE TREATMENT

~ BEG END

QO

100 11 1 0 0

100 11 1 0 0

100 11 1 0 0

100 11 1 0 0

C 0 S T E F F E C T I V E N E S S P R 0 ~ R A M

l A R

SEVERITY INDEX

82.5

82. s

82.5

82.5

HIGHWAY NO = 10 COU~TV NO :: 230

O.ISTRICT NO = 19 CONTROL NO = 26 SECT ION NO = 12

RECORDING OI~ECTION = 1 ADT HOOO) = 150

LIFE = 20(VRS) INTEREST = 6.0(PERCENT t

DATE = 8-73

D l M p R

OFFSET ~:(QUP MILE-POST IMPR IMPR SEVERITY CODE "iG BEG END ALT CODE INDEX

2 0 1&1.002 161.008 1 1-1-o-0 o.o

2 0 161.002 161.008 2 1-2-o-0 3.7

2 0 161.002 161.008 3 1-3-Q-0 2.6

2 0 161.002 161.008 4 1-4-o-0 1.0

CA·SE t· TEST (bridge piers 1n median)

Typical Cost Effectiveness Program Output--Test Case 1

Figure V-8

0 v

FIRST COST

( $,

22 5000

3600

1500

5000

E M E N T

PRESENT ANNUAL COST WORTH COST EfFECTIVE

VALUE ( $ t ( $/YfU

224999 19616 8225

5372 468 271

2073 180 82

6350 553 242

......

' TRAFFIC FLOW

26'(AVG)

60' MEDIAN (SEVERE RUTS)

3.0: I FRONT SLOPE

4.2=1 BACK SLOPE

RAISED INLET 1.5'x s'x s'

10'

-201

~.021 II

580.020

~ ,--23'

~+----11- 321

...J <( (.)

t= 0: (.)

580.010 2.8: I FRONT SLOPE

3.9=1 BACK SLOPE

TRAFFIC FLOW ( INVENTORY SIDE)

itt ADT= 136,000 (TOTAL)

·sCALE (FT) 0 10' 20 30

TEST CASE 2 k580 .. 005 (HAZARD MILEPOST) I .. . . 10'~

Location of Hazards--Group Hazards in Median (Test Case 2)

Figure V-9

V-19

------------~~ --------

ROADSIDE HAZARD. INVENTORY.

Inventory Conducted by .6! D_jt1/eav-_er . Poge __ of..: __

() Check Box If Colu~~·--5 _ Thru 2"!. Are to be Duplicated from P!evious Inventory Form Yr.

0

0

Mo.

~ltll'll] ~~ [/l_(?.f~ fZJ [OI§Jml 1 a ! " ~ 6 1 .. ' tn Ho1ord """'"' HioftwOw- Nutnb.. tounty Cod•

Hazard OHcrlptlon• · Guardrail

II 1:1 I'! 14

Control Numbp

,., Rtr.ordlno O&Utct""' I Wit,.. f.4UI•puaf

18 19 20 Al>T (ToiGI &ot~ [)irllctuma lOOO's)

tl l2 u t• Dcitt

!--- .. - ······· -------------····-

CLASSIFICATION

~~r~J n. ?.II •

ldt.l'\tift~otton O~ti::rfO'tor

·code Cl>dt

70

Olhtl Codt ·I. Ript

2 Mtiilon

f¢16TOJ~ J(l '\J v ~' ~· ~~ 36

Mo<lion Wid"' (It) Groupmv Nllmbo• ILto•• Sionk t! Medion in'ol'tntoned on Nedf Std• Only)

LOCATION

Ref•rence Mlltpott Odometer Rtadli'IO at Hazard

Milepoat at Hazard

2 AQOirl" M•!•po•t

?lklololobS"I 31 :58 39 40 41 42

- -------·- .. --lh<tpl lot p..,, huatdl

t'"d

------

LONGITUDINAL HAZARDS (Curbs,Bridgerails,Barriers,Guardrails,Oitches,and Retainino Walls)

~rotd Olhot,. D0 llll~

[lfQ1 VI2l 53 ,... 55 ~6

BttiM"'9 End

znd or BACK (Except for SLOPE

[ol:2.!3] 57 ,. 59

htivM (fl.) or Depth Ill.)

BeQIQAiflQ

60 6)

Width (W)UI )

I

[~~~ sl 119 l'O

r"d

,-------END TREATMENT---. - 1 ~ Guordroll Only (g) ~ n

I. Not BtQinftint ol Structure­Sofety Treated

2 Nol Bt_QWintnQ q:t Strudure­Not Sofet~ · Trected

3 ::~i~~~:Lo'r!!~~~:~;:-4 8eQinntnQ. ot Structure -

Not FuU · 8tom Connec:t1on

i Not E114iflv ot Structure -Safety Treo.ttd:

2 Not £luling a·t Strud~~ -NOt Sofet~ Treated

l EndiAQ at Structure­Fult- 6to"' COftMction

4 EndinQ at Structure -Not FuU-8et~fft Con-nec~ton

Stope F~~ou Erosion Code I. Sfighf oF None

Z. S.•••• IRutt•llt.)

0 .. Stope Olr•tHOfl

I. PotitiVt 2 ... etittivt

0

Inventory of Hazard No. 1 in Grouping (Guardrail)•-:-Test Case 2

Figure V-10

V-20

)( 0 ID

(\j

X 0 ID

0 0

0

0 0 0

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

ForM 8 (AUG, '73 I

ROADSIDE HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS Check Box If Columns 5 Thru 16 Are To 8e Duplicated From · Previous Form

lol/ !Dill ~ 2 3 4 , 6 7

~-8 9 10 c-ty Co*

II 12 13· 14 Ill 16 Collti'GI _.., Seetioollilllllblr

k'k2~161Sk2 17 18 19 20 21 22

F-..1 Cost of t ... prov-11 1$1

40

m 40

[I] 40

.-"-<Hr Cost por Colliolooo Ctl----, .--· _._ ,.,,..,___, lol2lolol IOI/ L51ol lolt JSiol l? It 10 lol U24252111 272829i!O ~323354 353837118

Haaord ..,_, No..,. !-'

I.Re-2. Men Breoll-y _,., Reltco"

olruet hlt.l to SOfo DooiQn · uct. Crooti-DroiftoGe s,a-1- Noadwolto .E"•'·d Cut

46 47

IIIJ 41 49 i!O loMih lfll

,, 52

Width Cftl 5354

ott ... lltl

LONGITUDINAL HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS

II] (I]curb 40 42

~ ~Bridg..-oil 40 42

0 I. -. oed Roorodt 2. lnttall Wodoo Modlflcellool

43

O I.Rioid 2. 501111-rloid

43 0 I. Uporodt .. Full SOlely St-era

2. - Letai'GIIy CCOMpleto Boa A lloloWI 44 1 lllol!IA Guerdr.oil AI- Bridg..-oil Fou

4. Doell - Gep llle-on Porallot BridOOI Oftd lllolall Si ..... BritlfoniiiiCMIP- .. A -1

40 42

40 42

Boot A (INSTALL GI.IMORAIL)

0 Laterol OfiMI lfl)l

r:;;;) 1. "- Exiotint Goaerdr<lil · t=J 2. \IHrOft to Full SOfot.y Slondordt IC-Ioto .... B 8-. if -'',UCo .... )

43 1 Uptrado to Full SOlely Standordo ond Clno-up Gap Ceom,lete 8u II lolowl 4. c--up Gap Bot- Existint -..oil tCompleto lloaB Below! 5. IMtall Guordroil to Protoct S._ Not 01 8rid90- -May Include Poitlt Hozordo IC:O..,Iote .. A -I 6. -or £11iotiftv G-dreil to Bridge,.il 1. In_. Goaerdreilat_Briqo A-odl CComp- lex A Be""') e. lnaloll Guordr<lit D-tillo lridoo tCclnPO•• ... A Botowl 9. Sofott T<Mt Goaar*ol' Froo•End Ont•

D I ............ to. SOlo Craoo Seet;,n 2. lleplectt wttll Sler111 Draift

43 :S. Protect with Guerdroil (Comploto h A lotwl

BOX 8 (CHANGES TO EXISTING GUARDRAILS)

r'"-"' Olfwt till--, r--1.-ethon lftl---1

~

End

I ! I

56 57 58 End

70n72737475

1~--Shorten 1111----,

59 60 61 8e<jinniftcJ

626364 End

0 u

$1--­I.Polili .. 2-llotOIM

Improvement Alternative No. 1, Hazard No. 1--Test Case 2 (Upgrade Guardrail to Full Safety Standards)

Figure V-11

V-21

I

N

-------------------------------------~~

0 0

0

0

0 0 0

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

ferM 8 IAUG. '731

ROADSIDE HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS Check Box If Columns 5 Thru 18 Are To le Dupllc•ttd From Previous Form

1011 IOVI ~ SIT 8110 11121314 1118 I 2 3 4

ttuoril ......... ...._, ........ c-IJ CMt Coii!NI tt.Mr SHIIM .......

1?1819202122 flrotColltofiMPI-tol$)

40 42

m 40

[[] 40

r--lltpeir COst .... c:.....tfl---, r--NoriMI .......... ,., .... --,

loi21DIOI IOiololOl E?I1L5IOI loloi"I(.}J U~H» DHH~ ~UHM HMU.

........ .__. 110-.1 ,___.

... 4?

ITIJ 48 49 50 51 52 5354

h10Cithlftl Widtlllftl Off .. t tft)

LONGITUDINAL HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS

[lJ UJcurb 40 42

[l] [g) Bridoerail

40 42 D l.llltid

2. Sellll-rltld 43

0 I """"" to Full Sot.., Steowierdo ~ - LeleNIIy IClloootllete 8al& A 8elowl

44 1 -II Gloordreil Alo... lridQoroil FOCI

·4. Doell a- Gop Bet- PCiroiiOI BridgeS- -~ S ..... lrkfttroll t~ S. A -1

[g) [ID Guardrail

40 42

ml....,...EICislifttGuardrail ll.J 2. ~ to Full Sotot, St-do (Ceollplete Boll 8 Below, if Applic-)

43 3. 1JHNo1e to Full Sofotr Sloftdorda 0.,.S CioN-up Gop tc-.,tete Boa 8 -1 4. CloM-op Gop ..._ Eailtifla GuoMoil ICoollplete 8al& 8 Belew I 5. -1 Gooardrail to,_, S'- Not ot 8ridQo--tlllar lftc- Paillt Hazards IC:-- a. A BilOw I I. Al.lcloar E!liat;,.. Guar..,il to BridQiroM 7. IMtoll Guerdrail ot Bridoe Ap-" I Complolo Boa A Below) a. IMtoll '-*-it Oopertlllo Bridll IC<IIIIIIIo,. Box A Below! 9. Sofett "'-1 Guardroil F-·Eftll Oolo 1-----------------------------------------------· --------1

D L llllllope to Safe Croaa Soctiolo 2 ........... Willi StorM Dreift

43 3. Protect witll Gtoerdroil IC-ptoto Boa A Belew)

Boa A (INSTALL GUARDRAIL) rtotarol Of- (ttl-,

BOX 8 (CHANGES TO EXISTING GUARDRAILS)

r-L .... - (ftl--"j

Rig~t or CLKIJ -ITHIJ -- ·far Side Sidt ITIHIIJ

45 46 47 48 49 50 51 S2 80Qimtift9 EOd ......... [""

56 57 58 Elld

I I I ! I I I ?07172737475

,--SIIerllft (ttl-----,

ITIJ-CIIJ

D S'- -­.. -, ... 2. NIQOIM

Improvement Alternative No. 2, Hazard No. 1--Test Case 2 (Remove Existing Guardrail)

Figure V-12

V-22

I

N

~ ID

,.., .. A lAIIt '73·)

ROADSIDE HAZARD INVENTORY

Inventory ·Conducted by G: D llfl eo I.(..«::__ Pave __ of_ __ . _

() Check BOx if Cotu~-!'• __ 5_ Thru 24 Are to be Duplicated from Prevloua Inventory Form Mo.

0

lOJIJfil~ . ~~] • I .l· _. & 6 I S K')

r'r~1a1 fmZ~J?J II 1? t3 !4 I~ 18

HOHrd Ml.lmbti . HtQhWQy ~b•r Counlw Cod• CG-f\tfnl Number Se('tlon No

17] ~ lfJ lalzL§'I ~I 22 U 24

o..t.

Hazard O.Crlptlon • ..... -=£~h~O;,::;-,.e::b:;..;€-~~:=·!:.---------,..........._ .. ____ .... ·-------------· ~---- .. ---·-------

11

Recordino o~roctlon f. With Mlftpu•t 2 Aoaln•t MUepo.t

i8 1• lio A(IT .ITOiol Both DlroctiOnt 1000'•1

CLASSIFICATION

• •r 2R

ldtnlilicolion Dtoctii>IOt Codt Code

S,LOPES

FRONT SLOPE

~l , . 011111 Code I. IUglll 2 Mtdlon

11JlfltbDf2J ~3 ~ ~~ . ~6

kl)iruwnq End

f~16Ti'-J loQlf~J lO ,, ,? '' ~ ~~ ~

Mtdlon Wldlll !ltl Groupino Numbo• (ltovt 8tonk II Medu1" lrwtntorted on Near S1dt Only)

r- ------S.h'b'pfltn---~

[~ 11 llrQJ r 1 'H Sb -.J9 60

~qinntn9 End

~ -- --·- --- -- -- ---2nd or BACK (Except for Level Terrain)

SLOPE r----· ---· Steepntu ---~-l

~:1 [i~ijrl 6t eo n ro

LOCATION -----

U:.•nttt tor Pottu H6rn•dl lll<l

Reference Mtltpoet

Odometer Readlnt at Hazard

____ ....... -- ________ ._ _____ -__ __..__ __ _ _ ___..__ __

Milepost at Hazard SJBJoiol/lol t51e lolol31@ 37 3e 39 40 41." 42 4!o 4-4 45 46 '47 48

4 Btotftninq ctt Sttuctufe­Not Fuii-Beoct'l ConnethOI\

~------------------------- ·---'--

r-·-·-· o"tonct "oj (11.1--· ·--.,

[ZJh] llJzJ 6f f.J'"l 63 ·64

S.Qtnn•~~ End

1 .. ... .. Oiolonct "o; (II. I .. • ·.· .. --,

[-?.l3l [g)~ " 74

~ n

Slopt foeo Eroolon Codt I. SlloM-or None 2.5t¥tro(Rul .. ll!)

@ .. StDpt 0if'8Cfi.Oft

I. PGIIItYt 2. Ne;afHif

--- - .. -- ---~

[2] '" Slope Fote

£tchton·Coif, I $1ith10f.NoN 2 _~t.v.,, (M4Jf4:tol·ft)

[lj ,. "iloP• Otrtcllon I 'Potift'fe 'l Ntgftive

Inventory of Hazard No. 2 in Grouping (Slope)--~Test Case 2

Figure V-13

V-23

N

)( 0 ID

'" )( 0 CD

0 0

0

0 0 0

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

ForM I IAUG. '131

ROADSIDE HAZAftD IMPROVEMENTS Checl Box If Columns 5 Thru 18 Art Tt 8t Du,licett4 Frtm Previous Ferm

loltf2121 ~ IZiml ~ I 2 3 4 -- 5 6 7 ........,,_ . , .. II 12 IS 14 I& IS

c-tr c.. CMtnl -~ SocliDII ..........

IOIDitl•laiOI 171819202122

,.,., Coot of llllpro•-·· 1$1

40

r-flepol• e.ot I*CIItillollttJ--, r-,.., .... Maill....._ ,.,,..,..___,

lt1 ld IOiol I() 11 10101 fJior.?IOI 141/ 101~1 23 24 ·25 • 21 21 21 30 31323354 S!l3831'llll ..,_, ...... ...._......

D I.R- . 2 . .,........,._ ...... ,., ___

IIICIMtruct 1- to Sato Dotitn 4.. ructCren-Dre...,. ,__, __ lla,E>~•·•dCul

N OJ ~--40----------------------~--~~~------~~~--~--------------------------~ 1

[I] 40

ITIJ 5I 32

W14th Iff)

LONGITUDINAL HAZARD IMitftOVEMENTS

[g) [[) Cur•

40 42

0 (g) .... ,. ..... 40 42

0 .. .._. .. ""···· 2. IMtoll W .... MMiflcetioft 43

0 1-ltlthl 2. s-1-riti'

43 0 I ......... to Full Safetr St-orft

2 . .._ LIIINIIr lc-t!oto ... A 811owl 44 3. IMtd ...,dreil ·Aioot lrldoerail Foco

4. -- G._, lot- Porollel lrid .. o .,. lftstoll SiotiO lrioltiNII ICMIP- .. A -1

l4:=l L "- Ewtillf Gulr4reil ~ .z. u,.- to Fuii'Sofotr Stoo- t~to luI -· it Appt;c-1 43 3. u,.,.a to Filii Ser.tr $ ........ ..,. Cl--up G• IC-.Ieto ... I lo!ewl

4. CleM-UII-~ E•iotioot ~II t~to .... letewl 5. -.toll Goolrtlroil to,_,~- ot lri4,e--1Hr lftcludl ,....,, Hoozordo tca...,teto lea A....,., II. Anther Eo11tillt G-dreil to .... roil

Boa A (INSTALL GI.IAitOIWL)

1. .... ._ -oil at Br.i4to A,..... t c-.- loll A lo'"l t. lntoll &..dreil O..,.tlnt lrWfoiCMo!IIIM ... A lolow)

'· Setott Treat Gulrdroil FrM·EM -

D I. ,......... to Sef•. c .... Soctloll 2. """"' willl StorM Dtoio

43 3. Pr-t with Guu•reil IC.. .... to ... A lletowl

IMX I (CHANGES TO EXISTING GUA .. DRAILS I

rLotetol Olfoot lftlJ r'--• Olhet Ifill r-~ lttl--1 r---s...,t•ft em---,

~ .. ~~~~ ITIHIIJ DIHIIJ 4!146 474e 4'5e 51st

s.,;.";,g Eoct .......,. w End

56 57 58

40 42 45 44 45

-------~~--zn4 or 8ACK SLOitE

I I I ! I 70711'273741'5

59 60 61 &ogi"'""'

62 63 64 Eod

0 63

SlopoDiroc­l.l'oositivo 2.Noptivo

sa- Dirlctilll l.l'looitiVI 2. NIQOtM

Improvement Alternative No. 1, Hazard No. 2--Test Case 2 (Install Guardrail to Protect Slope)

Figure V-14

V-24

0 0

0

0 0 0

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

For01 I (AUG. '1Sl

ROADSIDE HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS Check Box If Columna 5 Tlttu 18 Are · To Be Du,llcated . Froll\ Prevloua · Form ·

k?VE'Jizl ~ lZlmJ ~ I 2 3 4 S 5 T I • ~ U ~ Q K m • ....... ....... ........ ........ e-., Code Coldnl .....,., S.Cifall .......

.-...-• CO.t "'COIIioloft 1t1--, .-- ...,.._ ,.,,..__.._, IOiololololol I(Jiololql lolololol 101/lolol IIJitloiOI "~~~~H UMUM UHHM ~~UM »H»U

Firat CO.t of ,_..,_tal$) lloHrcl ...,_, ... ..,. · .__.

m 40

m 40

TZJ 40

II] 40 42

f1J ~Gtlordrail 40 42

0 I.Ro-2. Make Break- OMlor Ralocoto

-truct """' ·to sor. D•• 4. · ruct Croat-Dr'"- Sp-1"""- -IIS,E•O.•d Cui

tllJ 41 49 50

Leao .. lft) Sl !12

Wiclth lftl

0 I u.tracla lo Ft~ll Sofetr Sleftdarcll 2: ...._ L.......,. ICollpleto Boa A '3aloorl

44 1 IMtoll Gooor4rell AIHt lrifterail Foce 4. - Ower Gop let- Porollel 11<1

. II()X 8 (CHANGES TO EXISTING GUARDRAILS)

rL ...... Olhet 11u-, r--...,..•h••''''-· -.-1

ITIHIIJ

.--St.....-----, c=r=J:l c=r=J;l

41 49 EM ----

Eod ...................

$5 M otfael tttl

I I I ! I (~II If l)lflerlftl F- 1-lorJ)

[I] Ne IMproveM•t RecommQdell 40

D $lotle0iloctiooo t.Ptditi~

54 2 ....... ; ••

D 5l

51-DirocticMI tPalitive 2.111Qative

Improvement Alternative No. 2, Hazard No. 2--Test Case 2 (No Improvement Recommended)

Figure V-15

V-25

N

0 0

'"""' A (Aujj '731

ROADSIDE HAZARD INVENTORY

Inventory Conducted b'I~~.JlJI!tt::__-Page __ of _ _...:.... __

Check Box if Columna 5 Thru 24 Are to be Duplicated from Prevlo1.11 Inventory Form

[(211100'1 1 a 1 • Hoaaut-M<

~J f/.16.al • 6 ' • • 10

tlloJtwo, -bor COWIIf Codt

~J Jt tP' I.J 14 I~ lfl

Controt Numb•r Sedif1n No

Hozord O.Crlptlon • 7i"eos r--------·-

CLASSIFICATION

~ 11\ ;.'f) N ?.A

ldt~>llflcall<>n DotcriP!Or Clidt Cado

?q

Off"! Co&lt I. lllohl 2. Mtdlo•

POINT HAZARDS

f(?I6iiJ. 00001 30 " ''- !S !0 5& )<!

Mtdlon Wldtll Ill) Groupitlo Numbtr (lto .. BI<Hik If Medion"fn'41\totttd on Noor Sldo Dnlf)

LOCATION

Reftrenc• Mlltpoat Odometer RHdlnt at Haiard

Milepost at Hazard

17

Aotord"'t Dttortton 1". With loltltpQal 2 AtoiMI Mttopoal

(ZlmJ II It 20

ADT CTolol 8oth Dl••<liotlo IOOO'ol

Mo. Yr.

14k'OOYI 21 u 23 !4

Dolo

···-·--------~ ·-.-····· --

----..... &.--~ .. -....

--------- -------I 1 I I I

4S 44 45 46 47 48

6UJ~ M ~7

WidthCWICII.) 58 59

ltOQih CLI(It.)

r-:-Droplnltla Only-----,

~~ so 61 ez e3 84 s~ sz

.. QIOrd ott .. t. Ootft)

,.] $4 .,~ ,,

8t9in01"9 .f.•d

2nd or BACK (Except for SLOPE

Heivht Cit.) or DtPII>(II.l

4. Btginntno at StruCture­Not FuU- Be om C.onnKhOn

Er011on Co,.• 1 snohl or Nona 2.s.-o(fMa•lftl

[J "" Slopo Dlt .. llon

I PoaiU'fle

2.N•o•ll••

---------~------------·

Inventory of Hazard No. 3 in Grouping (Trees)--Test Case 2

Figure V-16

V-26

N

)( 0 CD

..., )( 0 CD

0 0

0

0 0 0

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

,.,., a (AUG. 'nl

ROADSIDE HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS. Chtc• Box If C~lumnt 5 Thru 18 Are To Ia Du~tllc•ted Fr1111 Previou1 Form

101tlol31 ~ 2 s 4 !I • 7 ...,_, ......... 111!1314 ISMI

CoMitl ....... Steliool ........

ld lalololoiiJI 17 ... 19 20 21 22

Firet Coot of llftpro-tel$)

40 42

OJ 40

[1] 40

40

~ [g) arido-ra~ 40 42

~ ~G-drait 40 42

[l] (I] Ditch

40 42

r--:-...,. C..t .... CellloiQol t$1--, r--:-,.., .... ......_ c.,wr•--, lololoiOI lololoiOI lololSIOI lolol5k21 23242!128 17212130 31S2SSS4 S!IH-SfH -·d .....,_. ....... ~

2. •• _,and/or ~loc ... llocoMtruot ...... .. Sefoo on;..,

4. Croll---_eiMft ,._ 1-...o. -lis, E•t.tod Cui

... 4T

CIIJ 41 49 !!() 5I 52

LOIIOthlft) Width lttl

0 I. It- and Rotrede 2. ·~tell ..... Modlllcot'-

43

r'-- 01t1et , .. ,,

D I. ~ .. Full Selet1 S-* 2. ..... Late .... ,, lc..o,tele Boa,. ..... ,

44 :S. llltiell Guar~ AI..,. lrid..,.,;t Foce 4. Doell - G"'' lei- Parollol lr

BOX 8 (CHANGES TO EXISTING GUARORAILS)

r--u'"'".,.lttl--1 ITIJ-[IIJ

!13 54!1!1 ...........

Eod

!IT 58 EM

56 57 58 Eftd

Na1erdl Millpolt

59 00 61 BoviiiOinQ

!15 54 otiMt (ftl

I ! I l~lo If _Oil'-,_ ,......,,1 707172U747.!1

~ Ne llllprevelltllt RJCOMIHMM 40

0 SI-Direclioll I.Pooili .. 2.NoQollw.

Improvement Alternative No. 1, Hazard No. 3--Test Case 2 (No Improvement Recommended)

Figure V-17

V-27

N

~ ..

If)

~

0 0

0

e 0 0 0

0 0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

ForM I (AUG. 'l'Sl

ROADSIDE HAZARD .IMPROVEMENTS Check lox If Columftl 5 Thru II Are To le Duptlcote4 Frem .-...vioui Fer•

~ 2 3 4 • , !0

c...tr Ceclt 'iti21S14 1515 Coldrtl _ .. , Sectiool .......,

lolt.>lal/ 17151 11 18 19 10 2.1 u

Finlt Coet of •-••-•1$1

r--hpair C..l per Cclllllon ttl--,

loloiOiol IO!ololdl 024252& Z1Z8H30

........ d ~

POINT. HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS

[l] rr Alleviclto Huord [1] I. R-LLJ 2. -· .....,. _ _.ler Relecole

40 42 43 :S. _,,.,., llllot 10 Sot. llooitft

r--...,_. ... _ ctJJII'l--,

f01al610l lolololal 3131:SSS4 35HSTM ... - ...,_.

4. -·""' creao-DroiMtO s.-- •--• ,E.,.,,~ eu~-•· -.oc.l

m ~ p..,...,, Hoz-.,d willl G-droit llfuord llot 011 Critlcel Slope) CD Lotorol Oflsel lfll

40 42. 44 45

[[] ~ ProteCt Hozttrd wi"' COMtete ,._.ott hrrier tCMBl o=J '--- Otltot lftl

40 42. 46 41

[]] ~ Protect Hazard witll £-ty .Atton .. tiool s~- ITTI [I] ITJ 40 42 48 49 se 5I 52

lOMihtfll Width Itt)

GITUDINAL HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS

40

[lJ [2J lridteroil

40 42

40 42.

MX I (CHANfOES TO EXISTING GUARDRAIL$)

rLolorol Olfool (ttl-, ,.-l .. lllon (tl)---~

40 42 41

-- -- __!!...~ ~ --2n' or BACK SLOPE

IT.IHIIJ

r--------, c=r=J:l c=r=J:1

q 4,

59 60 61 Beginntlw)

--~---........

£tMI

I ! I 70 71 12 11 74 15

5354 Othot lftl

62 63 64 Eod

D SI-Oiroctioll tllelitiw 2. ,.... ....

Lmprovement Alternative No. 2, Hazard No. 3--Test Case 2 (Remove Trees)

Figure V-18

V-28

N

ROADSIDE HAZARD INVENTORY

Inventory Conducted by G.D Wea~_Paoe __ of:;.._. ·-. _

0 ~----------------------------------------~-------------~----. Check Boa If Column• .5 Thru 24 Art to be Duplicated from Previous Inventory F()rlft

k?ltkil#>l ~ (li).DJ ~J 1 1 5 · 4 & 6 1 8 • 10 II Q 13 14 15 liS lloaard _..., . ......,.., -bw Coonly Cock COIIIrol Number Su:Unn No

~~-~ord _ O.Crlptlon • /?~4•t( .OJ'QD lhl<:f

CLASSIFICATION LOCATION

II f<Ht:WJ Z'\ ?«. U 2ft

ldontiltcotton . O..C.!t>IOr Code Codo

.•

?9

Olltol Codl I. IHtfll 2. Modlon

POINT HAZARDS

f<2I6.T~ (01jJj]81 30"'?. 51~35~

Mtdldn Wldiii-UH Groultlna Number lltovo 81onk it llltdi... ... ....... " on Ntor Sl~t Only)

R•ftrenct Mlltpott Odometer Rtadln; at Hazard

Mllepott at Hazard

[!] 11

Rec.ordMIQ Olreci~

I. With MiloP<>tl 2 Aaolntl Mllopotl

!Zlt[6] II 19 20

ADT notal llolh Olrothonl 1000'•1

Mo. Yr.

lolslzl81 21 22 25 24

Dolo

··--------· . ·-·- .. ·-""'"-

(bctpt """""''llo•m·d) (lid __ .. ___ .. _, __ _

----~"--~---

---------- --__.__ -·----I. I I ... I .I I

45 44 ., •• 47 41

Sl 57 WidthiWllll.)

58 59 lentth lllllt.l

Go 61 62 63 " sa

2nd or BACK SLOPE

End

lloi9M Ill.) or Oopth lfl.)

.

Bea•nning

D u

I. Not EiHIInQ at Slrue lure -Safety Treoltd

2. Not Endi1111 ot StruclUft ,­Not Solely Trtoltd

2. SHort IRui~> 1-ft.)

N

)(

i

I.nventory of Hazard No. 4 in Grouping (RaiEied Drop Inlet)--Test Case 2

Figure V-19

_v-2-~

0 0

0

0

0 0 0

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

, .. ., a tAUG ·n1

ROADSIDE HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS Chect Bn If Columns 5 Thru II Are To ae Du,Uceteil. Frelll Previous Forlft

1011101#1 I 2 3 4 .... _ .........

IOiolt?l DloltJ I 17 .. 19 20 21 l2

Firat Coat of 1-ov-ta t$1

40

m 40

40

~ [l] 8ridgoroil

40 42

(gJ rn-·· 40 42

~ • 9 10 c.uat, eo.-

11121114 ""

.--........ c.•,.. c- c+t--, lblololol k' Iaior> I

Hoaord

21 za n !10 .....,_,

0 ··­. ·2 ............ k_ .....,,., ...........

AoceMtrvct lnt.t to Salt Deaitn

.-_. ... ._ ttJ,.t--,

k'IOISI¢1 loloiSiol 3152SS34 :S5MS?lll

Maawol .__,

4. t Cron-O.aiftote Sp-1- -lls,E•te"d CUl-t

ITJJ 48 49 50

UIOOihlftl 51 52

Width lftl 5354

otfut tftl

D ··-·""" Rett•4• 2. IMtell We ... MM!flcallon 43

0 1 ...,._ .. ,IIIISafetJ s_ ... a: MMe L......., (Cetllplete 8011 A latowl 44 S. IMiell Gooer4rell AI- Bri~l l'oce

lOX I {CHANG£$ TO EXISTING GUARDRAILS) rt-...... - ,,,,.., r--.._ ..... lftl--1

ITIHIIJ

IT 58 Enol

I I I ! I

!56 57 58 tlld

59 60 61 8egiMifto

62 63 EIMI

llazord litilapoal ~~··"Dol-l .. _,._,,

'1'07172737475

~ M• •••roweMeat Recom•ndelt 40

0 Stopa OiNctialt l.l'lositi ..

54 2. Mooot•••

0 u

Sl---1."'-itiw 2.~

Improv~ment Alternative No. 1, Hazard No. 4--Test Case 2 (No Improvement Recommended)

Figure V-20

V-30

0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

For111 8 (AUG. '751

ROADSIDE HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS Check Box If Columns 5 Thru 18 Art To ·ae Oupllc•t•• Froa. Previous Form

1tJ I/ 1014'1 ~ ~ I 2 5 4 llazerd-

$ • 7 ......,_ II II .t:s i4 15 II c .............. __ ........,

k?ICJialolciDJ 17 18 19 210 21 22

Fint C:O.t Of 1-0V-1 C$J

r---.._., Coat perCGiieloloctJ---,

ll'IOiolol llJiololol 2? 21 a :so ....._.

r--................ ,.,.,,_:..-,

IOltJl5101 k'IOL5JOI 3152:SSM 55M5T38

No~ .__.

POINT HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS (]] OJ·•-tollazerd ~ '·"--lliiU 2.- ...... _ ....... lllloc: ...

40 42 45 :s. -··.a - to s.r. DeoiQii

4. -triiCt c--Or ...... Sip-(-- -ls.E•Iend Cul-t,Grodo,Eic.)

N

~----------------------~------~~------------~----------------~~~ m (g) Protect Haaard willl G-ail rn IJitorol Offset lftl (llazard Not .,.; Critical Sklpel

40 42 44 .4$

[]] ~ Protect Hazard willl Concreto Uodiaft a.r;ler ICMII CD""- Of, ... ,ft, 40 42 ... 4f

[[] [1] Protoet Hazard wilh E-.y Atto-tioft s,.- ITIJ OJ 40 42 ... 49 :so $1 52

L-thlftl Wi<lth 'cttl

GITUDINAL HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS

40

[ZJ 40

LII rn GuordrtMI

40 42

[i} [!]Ditch 40 42

[JJ 40 44 4$

........ EM

znd or BACK SLOPE-----

0 I. ..,..._ to Filii Sofolr Slalld•do 2 •. MoM Ulerelly lc.onptete Boa A _,

44 :S. llletell Gooor4roil Alo119 Brid91f011 Fece

4. - -· Gop llet- Parailel Briel

BOX 8 (CHANGES 10 EXISTING GIJARORAil.S)

.-L .... tllu(ft)--1

ITIHIIJ 56 57 58

Eftd

r--St---, ITJ:l ITJ:l

48 49

59 60 61 ~nooiog

--~---8oQirrinv

I I I ! I 7071'12157475

OJ 5554

Otfutltn

62 63 64 El\d

D 415

$lotiO Ohc­l.l'liliti .. Z.llltlllioe

Improvement Alternative No. 2, Hazard No. 4--Test Case 2 (Reconstruct Inlet to Safe Design)

Figure V-21

V-31

()

ROADSIDE HAZARD INVENTORY

Inventory Conducted by~· JIV'<:c~llt:r Pooe __ of ___ ~

Check Boll If Column_• 5 Thru 24 Are. to be Dupllcotd from Previous lnventorr ~~l!'__ ____ -----------11 ll2f~ [QJ~] [/~I]] ~IZlfJ~}-{Q]ZI 1a•• a•t • U 11 I.S 14 I!'! If\ Hoeord _.,., Hlol>waw ,..,.b., c ... ntr Codt ContfOI Number Str: tinn NO

Hotard O..Crlptfon • 71-ee:s ,__ ________ _

CLASSIFICATION LOCATION

llfi2HQJ?JJ roi6i?J W13l.tl Reference Mltepoet

Odometer Readlna at Hazard z!'i 'fl .• , n .10 ,, '2 '' ... :5:5 ~

ldonlllleotlon Dt~crlpiOr Mtdlan Wtdtto lltl Groupirllj Nwnbor

rlJ 11

Rtcor dtno Ott•r finn I. Witt- MUeputl 2 AQaintt MUtpnil

II It tO loOT «total Both Otr•cuont IOOO'tl

No. Yr.

--- ---

lh .. pt lor.P'oll>t HOiordl rnd _____ .._ ___ _

Coclo CoH

?9

oflool co-. I. l!lglll 2. Modlon

llto .. Blonk It Median lnventontd on Neor Sida Ordy)

Milepost at Hazard l$18 p IOrt 141 ITT I I I

POINT HAZARDS

~6 ~7

Widlh (Wl!IU 58 ~9

Lonolh ·cLHft l

~' :~e •• •o •• •e 43 44 4~ 445 41 •e

1 --0rop lnltlo Only---,

~~ so 61 62 "' 64 115~ Hoioht Ut.l 01 Oept~ 111.1

LONGITUDINAL HAZARDS (Curbs,BridQeroils,Barrlers,Guardraila,Ditchts,and RetaininQ Walls>

0 [2J rHorGfdOIIoot, D0 lftl::1 c··rJ ITJ CTIJ ITJ

.---------END TREATMENT-- • ~ .. ·--·--- ··1

0 Guordrall Only 0

0

~t "M ~&'I lloolnnlnrj Ehd

SLOPES

FRONT SLOPE

TT'df""cO 53 S4 ~~ ~6

8e9inn1~ (nd

~1 !It ~· HoloM Ill.) or Dtpt~ (II.)

10 «t Width IWlCIIl

,---:--Stoepr~eu---,

[I]al ITJ•l ~· !18 &9 60

S.QiMinQ End

~ u t. Nf)t 8ttinninQ ot Structun -

SOit11 Trooloo

2 Not Beoitlning ot Structure -,.., Soloty Troolod

3 Btoinntno ot Strut turf -

Fuii-B•am Cohnechon

4 B•vlnnin; ot Structllr~­Not FuU-Btom Conne-ttiOI\

,--:--- Q;JfOnct •o;• (ft.)-··- I

OJ ITJ 61 62 63 64

B•ttnntng End •

I Not [ndmo ot Sttuttvrt ·­Sotety lrtottd

2 Not El\din:g at Stru~turlft -Nol Solety Trootod

3. End1ng at Struc.tvt• -Fuii·Bea111 C-tlon

4 f.J'Iodift9 at S1tuetun -~ot Futl-810m ·COftnechon

0 S5

Slope Fou Eroeton Code I. Sllthl or None

2. S.Vore {Rult•llt.l

0 .. 1. PotUtve 2 .... ,., •••

~ -- --- --- -- --- -- -- --- -- --- --- -·-- --- --··----2nd or BACK (Except few L.evel Terrain)

SLOPE r· ---- -----011ton .. "o; un . --,

0] [1] 11 1'l 11 .,.

Bto•nnlnQ End Fnd

0 18

Slop• Foee (JOtlon cod• 1 Sliohl or Non• 2 S•w.,t (ftt.tfli>Jfr)

0 ,. "11opt OHeCitlo" I i'<!OIIIvo 1 ... 901•••

Inventory of Hazard No. 5 in Grouping (Trees) --Test Cas,e 2

Figure V-22

V-32

N

)(

0 Ul

0 0

0

0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0

0

0

0

0

Forlft 8 (AUG. '731

ROADSIDE HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS. Cuck Box If Celumns 5 Thru 16 Art Te le Dupllc•tett· FrM Previous Form

101110151 2 l 4 ........ -

lolalolalOiol 17 18 19 1!0 21 22

Firat Coot of 1-ov...,ontat$1

40

m 40

[[] 40

8 ' 10 c:-tr Code ·

~ II 12 I:S 14 18 18

COIItNI ..... SH-Iillllllloll

r--"-" Coot ..... ~ t$1---, .--....... ...._... ,., .. ,____, loloiOiol lolololol lD lol5101 10 loiSIOI u 24 25. 31:SZ:S:SM l!IHS7lll

""""' .__

2 ........... _, -- ..... Mtruct ""-' to S.to Dftitn

101:1 Cnn-OroiMoo Sp-1- -lis. E•le<>d Cui

441 47

[TI] 48 49 so 51 52 5554 b•lhlft) Wldth.lftl Off .. t lftl

40 42

(I] ~ ....... .u 40 42

(gJ ~G-dt'ail 40 42

[1] [!] Oilc ..

40 42

0··-- ......... a.t ... ~en ...... iildlticetieoo

"'

rL..- OffMt '"'•

0 I. UlliN* 1e Full 5efatr Ste4ofda 2. - U...., tc:-ptete. a. A _,

44 s. ........ Gooer*llil AIO"' Brldterlil ,_ 4. Oacll Over G.., 8otweOA Porollal ll<ld.

11eX I (CHANG£$ TO EXISTING GUAJIDRAI.S) r--L ... tloeR!ftl--~

OIHITI 53 54 55

8otinllint

57 .. 1M

!16 57 58 £1\d

llo•a•d llilopaat

59 EO 61

8otiMint 62

I ! I .1~• If Dilforont ,_ -IOfJl

@ No lmpr••••••t Recom ........ 40

701172?)7475

63 [ftd

0 Q

Sl-one­' '-'tiwe Z.IIIQDti¥11

Improvement Alternative No. 1, Hazard No. 5--Test Case 2 (No Improvement Recommended)

Figure V-23

V-33

N

~

., ~-ID

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

•- 8 t.AUG '731

ROADSIDE HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS. C"cll Box If C•lumu 0 Thra 1$ An To It Oupllcot•• FrOM ,.,..,lous F•m.

1¢1/IOL$1 ~ 12m ~ ~ees-!f~e 1!.3.4 557 .atiD IIIZISM ••

-· ......., .......... ........ c-., Co4t CelliNI ...... SeCtila .......

LIJ lok' 121$k21 171819202122

Firat Coet ot ,_..,_,, t$t

r-.._. c.t ,...CcM~oootft--,

1¢1o1Didl lol'!ltlltJI

POINT HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS m rn AIIMiat• ........

. 1'71 .. ...... lLJ 2 ................ ....,..._. ....

42 43 ,. ...... lruet """ "' so .. .,...

r--*-' . ..._ ,.,,,__,

ldlo151"1 le2lololal 31S2Ull4 :S5SBS7lll ......... ._.

4. ,.._truet CfOM.-OniMte s,Stloll 1""- Hoodwatls .E•tend Cul-t, Gre4t,Dc.)

N m [g) PnittCt -With e-.lreil o:J ~;.attMI Offset (ttl tllclzord. Not"" tritlell Slope)

40 42 44 45 ~----~----~--------------~------------------------------------~~ [] (J] Protect ·Hazortl with Concreto ......a,.. llclrrier tc:Mel CD l..llltntl Ofhot ··~~ 40. 42 45 47

fi) [1} Protect Hazard with E...., AtttftuotiCIII sw- ITIJ ITJ 40 42 ... 4\!1 !18 51 52

b ... thlft\ Wiclth_lftl

GITUDINAL HAZARD .IMPROVEMENTS

40

~ (i]er;c~ve,.•• 40 4!

II] rn ....... ail

40 4!

~ 40 42 43 44 45

-----~~-2 ... or BAC1C SLOPI

0 1 •. uw-_ . "_.:•• .. $41htr. s .. terido.· ,,. 2. -~Me Lt1Mt1J I~ 8Ciil A ..... I

44 5. ~ .......... Alollt Brioi..,.U. F-4 . .;...:o..r __ ... ,_ Parallol er·

r--Ltllll".., tm--· -1

CIIHTIJ S6 !>7 58·

Eftd

I I I ! I I I ronnn7475

rn 5354

Ofhet tttl

D 0

SIO!It DncMft I . ..Oti• 2. .........

Improvement Alternative No. 2, Hazard No. 5--Test Case 2 (Remove Trees)

Figure-V-24

V-34

H A

HAZARD I DENT OESC END

NO CODE CODE TREATMENT BEG ENC

< I w Ui 101 6 2 2 2

105 2 0 0 0

104 10 l 0 0

102 7 1 0 0

103 2 0 0 0

101 6 2 2 2

105 2 0 0 0

104 10 1 0 0

102 7 1 0 0

103 2 0 0 0

C 0 S T E F F E C T I V E N E S S P R 0 G R A M

HIGHWAY NO = 20 COUI'TY NO = 163

DISTRICT NO = 15 CONTROL NO = 123 SECTION NO = 2

RECORDING DIRECTION = 1 ADT (1000) = 136

LIFE = 20(YRS) INTEREST = 6.0(PERCENT,

OATE = 8-73

z A R D " M p R 0

SEVERITY OFFSET GROUP ~ILE-POST IMPR IMPR SEVERITY

INDEX CODE NO BEG END ALT CODE INDEX

17.3 2 333 580.005 580.030 1 2-3-2-0 3.7

50.0 2 333 580.024 58 o. 029 1 4-o-o-o 50.0

82.5 2 333 580.020 580.021 1 4-o-o-o 82.5

s.o 2 333 580.010 580.032 1 2-3-5-0 3.7

50.0 2 333 580.015 580.018 1 4-o-o-o 50.0

17.3 2 333 sso.oo5 58o.o3o 2 2-3-1-0 o.o

50.0 2 333 580.024 580.029 2 1-1-o-0 o.o

82.5 2 333 580.020 580.021 2 1-1-o- 0 o.o

8~0 2 333 580.010 580e032 2 4-0,...Q-0 8.o

50;.0 2 333 580.015 580.018 2 l~t-o-0 o.o

TEST CASE 2 (group hazards in median)

Typical Cost~Effectiveness Program Output--Test Case 2

Figure V-25

v

FIRST COST

(st

650 0 0

1600 0

500 250

2000 0

175

E H E N T

PRESENT ANNUAL COST WORTH COST EfFECTIVE

VALUE ( $) ($/YR)

56 4 GRCUP 56 4 GROUP 56 4 GROUP

2803 244 GROUP 2803 244 73

-1375 -119 GROUP -1125 -98 GRCUP

874 76 GROUP 874 76 GRCUP

1049 91 31

105.056

MEDIAN CROSS- SECTION ADJACENT. TO BRIDGE

TEST CASE 3

IGID BRIDGERAIL (INSTALL GUARDRAIL ALONG BRIDGERAIL FACE)

SCALE (FT) 0 10 20 30 40

------ I

105.000 (REFERENCE MILEPOST)

Location of Hazards--Group Hazards at Bridge (Test Case 3)

Figure V-26

V-36

()

0

()

6

ROADSIDE HAZARD INVENTORY

Inventory Conducted by _G.';_ P W~i!t' ~r ___ Pooe ____ of _____ _

Check Bolt If Columns S Thru 24 Art to be Duplicated from Previous Inventory Form --------------Mo. Yt

~ ~19JtJ ~~I !Zl IZJZJQ 171217131 ta.l4 ~67 .. ,.n HarOld Numbor tiiQIIwa, Nu"'l>"' f:ounly Clldo

II I' •3 14 Contro1 Numblr Retordtng Otr.CIMNl

1. Wtlh l.ttl•pu•t

II )9 20 ADT ITotal Both Dlt•ct•on• IOOOt•l

!1212524 Doll

Hazard Delerlptlon • qua rd,ti!i I - -~--- -·-·-- --------· . ------------

CLASSIFICATION

l.lli <'fJ •'I ZR

ldonlllkotlon Ooaorlptor

Clldo Codo

?9

Olltol Cadt

t. '"vii' 2 Median

I

fi2IoT~ WT/1 ~I ]() ,, 1?. !:S !4 :S'!I :56

Mtctlon Wldtll till Groupi!\Q Nul!lbtr tloavo 81onk If Medion lnvtntoned on Neor S•d• Only)

LOCATION

Rtference Mlltpoet

Odometer Rtadlnt at Hazard

Milepost at Hazard

2 A;oln•l Mtftpot..t

II !Ob?!~IOIOI .37 38 39 40 41 42

----·--~··- --·--

lh••l>l let ,. .. , KOtnrdl l.nd

----·····----~

II "'6l0l214i 43 44 ·~ 46 47 48

LONGITUDINAL HAZARDS (Curbs,Bridgerails,Barriers,Guardrails,Ditches,ond Retaining Wolls)

~ riri r ... , ;,a, ~ '2 55 ... 55 56 51 !II " 8tt1Miflt End Hol9ftl II!.) Of

Depth (11.1

f(llZ) 60 ..

Width lWl(lt.l

r---m--END TREATMENT-----, ll_i Guardrail Only ~ u "

I. f+)t B•olnn,nu ot Structure -Softly Trootod

2 Not 8t9inntno at Str ucturt -Not Saftt) Treoted

3 8toinning at Struc.ttJre­f utt - Btom Conne ctton

4 BtQinninQ ot Struetufe-­Not FuU- Btotn CtJrme<:.hon

I Not Eodift9 ot Str.,.turo -Soft!~ T•oalld

2 Not Ending at Str~tur~ ·­Nol Stthty Trtofed

3 f.nd1n9 at Structure­full-hom C~MCtlon

4 £ndm9 ot Strutt'fte -Not Fun- 8tofft. ·Connection.

o~ Q 1}2 ~5 56

8eQinniAQ End

2nd or BACK SLOPE

End

Slope F'oce Erotton Code I. SUQht or None

~- Sovoro tRut .. llt l

Slope Diro<llon I. PoaU.ve 2.Nooollvo

D

RecOIIImendatioRs:/~~.N,~ l~ ...,.--~---- ·-~-------

Inventory of Hazard No. 1 in Grouping (Guardrail)-~Test Case 3

Figure V-27

V-37

C\1

)(

0 ID

0 0

0

0

0 0 0

0 ()

0

0

0

0

0

0

FtrM I (AUG. '73)

ROADSIDE HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS Chec• Box l.f Columna 5 Thru •• Are To Be Dupilcettd Froa · PreviOue ForM

101!15101 I 2 3 4 ..._" ..........

It! loiQJj 12iL51 IT II 19 20 21. i2

Firat COlt of I_ ...... 1$)

40 42

[]] 40

[[] 40 42

~ I t 10 c:-tJ COde

11121314 I$MI CIHifiOI ....... Sectiool .......

~.._.,coat perColllllaettl--,

I"I.J151al 101212161 r--' ............ -. ,.,,.,--,

lt>f/151"1 lolaiZLfl 2324.25. ~323534 35M37111 ...... ....,_

2. lilollo-. _,., Ro-...,_,rlict -to Sofe OMiiR 4. t C--Oroiftete ,._ (....,_ -· .E•Iond Cui

.. 47

[I]] 48 49 50 5I !12 l-llllft) Wiftll 1ft) on ... tm

LONGITUDINAL HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS

[l] (I]curt> 40 42

O •llltlot &.$till!-~

43 0 1. IIPI!Nde.toFull$4 ....... $.-.. de

II· -.'-... """ ~~BOllA....,., 44 1 IMMII GIModroil A..... lriqenil F-

4. Dec* 0..0 Gop a.t- Poiollll If"'" - - 5i11t1e lridiiNil I~ a. A -1

IZI L- Etlislitlt Guatdrail 1!!!iZJ 2. "'""* to Full Sotett s.....- lc.,leto 80118 &olow, if AJ>~l 43 1 Upgredelo Fvll $ofetJ S ....... d. - Ctooo-1111 Gop ltompleto 80118 &olow)

4. etooo-• Goop a.- Eal&tifto Guoitdrou (Cotolploto 8011 8 lo!owl s.- GIModrail to Pfoltct SIIIPo Not ot iri4fo--Uewlftt- PGiM IIIHfole cc-.loto lloaA lolowl I. Allcllor EIIIOtiftt Guor- to •itltllnil

40 42

Bo• A (INSTALL GUARORAIL)

1. IMIIIII ._... ot lri4go A,.._ IComlllttO 8oa A-· a IMIIIII Guor- ~tifto ••tc-.~ote Boa A_, .. Sofolt ,._ -- Froo•£1111 "Ooll•

0 L ~to S.fo CIUo Soctioa 2 . ...,.... wllll Stor• -

43 1 Ptetoct willl GuaniiOII .tco...Jiolo - A llolowl

BOX B (CHANGES TO EXISTING GUARDRALS)

0 Loterol Olflot 1ft) I r'-- Olfoott (ttl-, r--'""""""" (ft)--1 r-----SIIortoll (ttl---,

;:..or-ITHIJ·~ITHIJ ITIHIIJ "ITIHIJ] 45 46 41 41 49 50 $1 1St

llegdottiftt £lilt ......... EM

~ ~ 4243 444$

........ EM

2nl or BACK SLOPE----

D 6l

I I I ! I I I 70117213747$

Slopollirtctioft I.I!Mili .. 2.fllllli ..

Improvement Alternative No. 1, Hazard No. 1--Test Case 3 (Anchor Guardrail to Bridge)

Figure V-28

V-38

I

N

I

Fo•"' A IAUQ '73)

ROADSIDE HAZARD INVENTORY

(-~ ______________ ....... _________________ _ \._) Check Box If Columna 5 !hru 24 Are to be Duplicated from Previous Inventory Form

0

0

0

Mo. Vr.

"'~(J ~ [Oltl'-l ~JZH!!191 fZI ~ lZOOl~ 1 a 3 t ~ s 1 s t 10 u 11 ·1J 1-4 1• It tn to u 25 24

Dolo Ha•ard ~.,., Htohwey Numb• COlM\tv Code Conlral Number Suttun No. ~c.ordN\o Ulrechon t. Vltth Mtlep" ... t

AO.T tTolql 8olh Olt•c.hona 10001tl

Hazard DMcrlptlon • Si(/ewiJ/k CV!'b I AQaiftll MHepoat

1---- ---- ------ -~-~ ----- -· -- ·- . ---·- ·····------ ·---

CLASSIFICATION

..... •r. , • ., ?.f\

tctttanfltaflon OttcriP,for Co,.. Codo

fl1 79

Ollul Code I. Rlpl 2 Modlon

[(iJotoJ ~1LI ){) ,. \0) !! 14 l!'l ~

ModiGh Wldll\ tit) OIOIIpi"'J Numbor lloavo !lton-11 M•d•on Jnyo~ntorted

on Neor Side Onty)

LOCATION

Refarence Mllepoet

Odometer Readlnt at Hazard

Milepost at Hazard I/ lol5lc1Zi41 31 38 39 40 41 42

(h<lpl ... ""'"' Hltardi .....

---'---"-----l/ I1JI$1o[6i/l

45 44 45 48 47 4$

LONGITUDINAL HAZARDS (Curbs,Bridgerails, Barriers,Guardrails, Ditches,and RetaininQ Walls)

r::HOtard orrooe,_ o.,un-,

~~ U'4 S&SI

Bo(lloni"'J [ftd

~ ~· !MI 5I HtltM (II.) or OOI>Ih (lt.)

~ 60 ..

Width (Wilfl.l

r---

0-END TREATMENT----------1

Guardrail Only 0 u n

1. Not 8oq1Min9 al S!ructu••­Solely Treotod

2 Not BtQIIV'IIr\Q ttf Shuctur~ ·*

"ol Softly Troaltd

l B•o•nnlng ot Structurt ~ Fun- Beam Conntr.tton

4 B•o•nn1nq ot Structure -Not FuU 81om Conn•.-f1on

1 Not [ftdmQ al Struc:lure -Soflty Tttottd

2 Not [ndmg at StrUtiluf't- ·

NQt Safe t~ T reottd

3 f.ndtnq at Struct\lrt­futt-·S.Of1\ C&Mctlon

4 f rtd1no ot Strwcture -Not FuU- Beam Conntct•on

00 0 '2 ,5!j, ~6

~Oin""''' Eftd

2nd or BACK SLOPE

E ros,on Code I. StiQhtor Non.f!l

2. Sovoro (Rult>llt l

Ae9tnnino

Ill Slopo Olrtc!l.,. I. Po&Ui\re 2. "'ootovo

D

Inventory of Hazard No. 2 in Grouping (Curb)--Test Case 3

Figure V-29

V-39

N

X 0 II)

If')

)( 0 lXI

0 0

C?f 0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

, •• ··- '731

ROADSIDE HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS Chtck Bo• If Colu.lbns 5 Thru IS Are To 8e O.pllceted From ,_vloua Form

lol.zl61/l ~ ~I? 8910 Hltl314 1$18 I t s· 4

llll&erd- .....-, ........, ca.tw Codt c:o.tn1 --... sac-...., r-"-' co.t ..... to~~~e~a~~ttl--, r-............... ,.,,.,_,

lololt>IOI IOloltJiol lololol;;l lolbloldl .., 18 " 20 21 u 31!21114 S5111S'PIII

, .... C..t of ._...._. •• NO&<IN ~

·-~ z ....... .......; ....,,., Rtlleo .. lrlllit ..... to · Sa,. OHiQII

c--DraiMOe S,OtiM 1--tis .E•le•d

I

01

~~----------------~----~~--~~ .. ~----------------------~~ 5I 52

Widlll lftl

LONGITUDINAL HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS (g) QJc~ 40

0 I. Upgroolo to Full Sar.1w Stolldardo t ...... L......., (CooopleN 8ol& A ....,,

40 44 1 MtDII ~ """" lrid....,;t Face 4- - a- G4op h-on Parol ... Br ..... - """"' Silltlo 8rWteNIII(Micl4ofe a. A-·

40 42 0 l- EUstlat Guordreil

2. IIJjpado to Full Salol, s•-• tc.....,.... eo. 8 -· if ~~ 43 1 Upgrade to Full Sah!J Slaft .... ds IN C--up Gap tCCifftple• 8ea 8 -~

4. a..-.. Gap ......... Ew._tillt GuardrOII·ICaloploto 8CIII8 Betowl $. ... taU -..rell to Pratoct. s....,. Not ot Bri•-- Mow lftclude - ... ..,.. tco.plete 8ea A llolowl

lll lil Oitcll

40 42

8o!' A (INSTALL GUARORAIL) rLalerol 011 .. 1 llt)l

~

&. .......... E*'iftt-droiltolridpreM 1. IMtoll ~011 dl lridp ,,_ ICDon ...... BolA Betowl .. ..._ a-drwil 0-titl· lridpiCaolllllto Bolt " ......,, 9: SaletY T--~ FrO.·Eod Ofth

0 l ........,. ta S.ta Crewo Sac­Z • ...,....willlstW•-

43 1 Prcttect wtt11 ~~ lc-.tot• 8os A _,

IIOlC 8 (CHANGES 10 EXISTING GUARORALS)

rLA*II OlfMI (fll 0 r--"l"''lllea lfl)--1

ITIHIIJ !16 57 58

End

40 42 4:S 44 45 ........ EM

z"' orBACKSLOPE ----

I I I ! I I 7071'PZ1ST415

0 u

Improvement Alternative No. 1, Hazard No. 2-Test Case 3 (Remove Curb and Regrade)

Figure V-30

V-40

•

ROADSIDE HAZARD INVENTORY

Q Check Box If C~lu'!'n• 5 :rhru 24 Are. to be Duplicated from P~evlous lnve'!tory Form ____ ·-----------Mo. 'Yr

0

0

~[~2] ~~ l<'l9.Jl] ~~~ [ZJ [l]Z[c2] fl~I?L3.J 1 a l • ~ • r e • to II 11 13 14 · 11 18 fl 20

AOT (Total 8~1h ()&recUon• 10001

t)

~· n 23 2• Dolo llorord HumHt HIQhwOJ _..., County Codt

~o-~~~~ _ ~rlptlon • ~Ji.~<'.t;_f!i/ CLASSIFICATION

Cot~trol Number Rec.ordtf'ltJ UtttCt""' -t .. With Mtlopool

~~ 1.'1) l6 ,.,. lift

ldo,.tilicollon Ooicrlplor Cotto Codo

>9 Olhol c­l.llltl'l 2. W.dlon

I~IoiiJ r~J?I2lil }() ~I '2 3:1 M J~ M

Modton Width (ft) Gtoupl~ Nllmb•r ILoo•• 8tonk II Mll!dtdn lnv•ntoned on Ntor Sldt Only)

LOCATION

Reference Mllepott Odometer Readln9 ot Hazard

Milepott at Hazard

2 A~olnU Milopo.,

11 k215'1olzl4d ~7 ~ !9 40 41 42

·----,-.

(b .. pt lol l'ot01t K&IOfd) hd

----------

~lol$1/l 4:! 44 45 4& 47 4$

LONGITUDINAL HAZARDS (Curbs,BridQerails,Borriers,Guardrails,Ditches,and Retaining Walls>

rHorord OIIMI, ~111.1-,

ral] [2R?J S! &4 35 !I&

~lnnl~ [nd

~ S1 ~ !t

Heltl't (!!.lor Depth (II.)

~ eo .,

Wldth (WICII.I

.-------END TREATMENT-----0 Guardrail Only 0 .. u

I. Not Beotnnh\9 ot Struchn• -Safety Tr•a••d

2 Not BtQ•ntVnQ ot Struclurt: -Not Softly Trtoted

3 Btoinning ot Struetur~~e -Fuu-·aeorn Connechon

4 Btginnif\9 ot Structure­Not full~ Seam ConttKft(ln

1. Not Endlno at Strut tur• -Softty Treottd

2. Not £nding at Sttuclure- " Not Softly Trtoled

3 EndlnQ at . Struct\lr• -Full-lloom Con-lion

4 Endin9 ot Slrutlure ·• N6t FuU-8tGI'ft. Co~nechon

Om D 66

$2 '5'!:1 ~6

Bt:CJinNN) End

2nd or BACK SLOPE

End

Slopo Olrtcllon I. Po•tttvt 2.NevaU~Jt

0

Inventory of Hazard No. 3 in Grouping (Bridgerail)--Test Case 3

Figure V-31

V-41

N

)(

0 al

It)

)(

0 en

0 ®

0

0

0 0 0

0 (0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

,.,., 8 IAUG. '7lil

ROADSIDE HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS Check Bolt If Coiumns l$ Thru 18 . Are To· •• D•p.Uc•t•- From Ptevlo:us Form

10 ltl51ZI ~ ~ ~ 2 :s 4

Hoaord-

5 • 7 ......... ~ 8 t 10 Couftty eo-.

II )I 1J ~'\& 15·141 c....... ....._.., s.ictilin IWIMr

10 lalo I% 151C I 17 18 19 20 21 22

Flrot CHI oi lnl~ov~lo C$1

40

(]] 40

[I] 4:0

IIJ

r:--Repoir CHt perc- t$1----,

lol41~51 IQ(9Lfl91 21242!126 27288110

Hooard ..,_,

2. Moiko lrou-v Oo.t1or "-locato otruct lot-. II, S4"' Do..,

,.....--.....--· .......... ,., .. ,__, fkl<it%1:61 I ole L$1al ~:sznS. :s&MS? ...

lleni'd ....,..,_,

I_ Cma~DrlliMQI Sip- 1"'- .__lis, E•ler.d Coli ...

ITTI 41 49 $0 lonathlftl

OJ $1 !12

Width lftl 5554

otru• m•

LONGITUDINAL HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS

[g) ITJcurb 40 42

[l] [2J Bridverall

40 42

D •·-""" Rott•.d• 2 . .,..._., W.,.. MN!tleolleol

43

m1.Ritl4 l!J Z. Selll-rltld

4:S

f"311. .......... to full Sat.lj SlllltlcirH ~2 . .._L-yl~lloaAhlowl

44 S. -M '"'*oil A'-"9 lritlo- Foeo 4. Doo1o O..r G .... _n Parotltl 8ridou - IMtall Siatlo lrido~NM l~lelo .. A -1

IIJ ~Guor-rail 0 1 . ........,, !f:•iotifto Guordroil 2. UptrOdo to Full Softly Sl-lh (c-plett Box I Below, if A11plicotohl

40 42 43 S. ~to Full Sofoty Slondortlo aM Closo~1111 Gop·(Completo Boa I 1e1 .. 1 4. C..-up Gel> Itt-A Eaiotiftt ~H IC_,..II loll 8 8tloWI !1. -•• -tlroil to ,_, 51- Not ot 8ritlvo- -May 1ncludf ·Point Hourlh t~ 11011 A llolwl

(2] [!J Ditch

40 42

6. AldiO< Exiotinv Guardrail tO lrid .. roil 7. hoalall Guwdroll at lrid" A,-h I CO...~ Ita A a.towl 8. llltloll Guardrail Doparti~O ·-.. leoon,leto ... A Bilow) 9. SofoiV T ..... Guot*oll FrH-[1111 Gollv

D 1. - .... to Safo Croll Soetieft 2. R.,r.e. Willi StorM Oroift

43 3. Protoct with G.rtlroil (Cornpleto ... A lttowl

Boll A (INSTALL GUARDRAIL) rLotorol Of- Ifill

BOX 8 (CHANGES TO EXI$TING GUARDRAILS)

Rithl <>< r-Tl___JTI MHieltr-r-LITI ~~~ion Near LJ........I""i ~ LL...r'"\.._j_J

45 46 47 41 4'11 $0 !II 52 Bttinnint £Ad ......... E ..

,_-LonvlhOI' 1ft)-.--]

ITIHIIJ !>3 ~ 55

llotiMinl

..... I I ! I

~ 57 58 Eftd

70 71 72 .73 74 75

~Shorten tm---,

59 60 61 &1Qinning

62 63 64• t:Ad

0 53

Slopo Diroclioll t.-livo 2.t;ovali ..

Improvement Alternative No. 1, Hazard No. 3--Test Case 3 (Install Guardrail Along Bridgerail Face)

Figure V-32

v-42

N

)(

i

0

,.,.,. A !Auv. '731

ROADSIDE HAZARD INVENTORY

Inventory Conducted by G:D Weaver Paoe __ ot_ __ _

Check Box if Columns ~-Jhru 24 Are to be Duplicated from Previoul lnventorr Form -

Mo. v •.

lt21Zl~ ~ ~19J7J ~a fZ] [1]?]0] ltiZI7~1 1 a 3 ... ' 6 1 . t Kl II

·~ 13 ·~ 15 ,. 17 18 1'1 20 21 22 23 z~

Hotord -bot' Hlthwor -b.. Coomty Codo

_H~~a~~ .. ~rt~tton. .S(og_~ ConhoJ Nurftbtr Sldtun Net AloCordtng Dtr•cl)on ADT tTotol 8oth Dolt

CLASSIFICATION

~ II1 " '" .'1 ,. 79

ldenhfltaUon Oe•tr,ptor Olfttt Codt Co do Codt I. llltfll

2 Modto•

POINT HAZARDS

~z l$4 !t!'.

Httzord Ofhef. 00(ft )

t. With Mll•"puet Obett10n• IOOO't) 2 A9olntt Mtlep.otl

- . -· ·----- -·-··--·---· -- .. ~· ....... -~~----·--- ·-·-

LOCATION , .. oi~n••~ll

(beopt lOt l'oml HOrnod) hd

r(!JPlllJIPl70 il Reference Mlltpoat ---- .... _a_ ____ ---

____ ... _____ .. Odometer Readlnv

"' ,, \?

Mtdldn Widlll Uti tltovt Bklnk if Medittn ln~nlotttd on Near Side Only)

ITJ !tl ~7

Width (W)(It.)

33 ~ ~ !16 at Hazard --__.____--Groupnv Nu'"bo'

Milepoat cat Hazard !2 rl ~!flf!Z I

OJ 58 !l9

Lonvth ILIUt I

31" 38 l9 40

,-----Drop lnlots Oflly---,

[TLJ ITIJ 61) fi.l 62 63 64 $5 HeooM (II. I ot Doptll !IU

41 42

__ _..__ __ ltloi5Io~~ ~s .. ·~ 4S 47 48

LONGITUDINAL HAZARDS (Curbs,Bridgerails,Barriers,Guardrails,Ditches,ond Retaining Walls)

r:HOI .. d OffHt, 0 0 (11.1-,

[1] [IJ ss 56

BtviMint End

SLOPES

FRONT SLOPE

51

ITlJ 57 58 59

Hoi~~~ !II.} or Dopth lft.l

CD 60 6l

Width !W)Ift.l

,---:--Steopneu----,

~ll ~&1 57 se " •o S.oinnlnt f. nd

f--- --- --- ---- -- --- --

2"d or BACK {Except for Level Terrain) SLOPE r·--- ·--- . ·- S.ttfpn•ll -- ---·-1

~tl ~tl 87 ••

8tQinnift9

19 10

End

.------END TREATMENT------. 0 Guardrail Only 0

er n l. Not Betinnint ot Structure -

Sofety Treated

2 Not BeQinnlrtQ at Structure -Not Safety Treo111c1

3 Beoinn1n9 ot Structure­F uU - Beam ConnecHon

4 BtQinntftQ 01 Stru-cture­Nat full 9t.om Conn~etion

.--~Di•tance "o;• tft.)---·-·· 1

~ llii1J ., ?i 6~ fo.q

B•u•nnmv End

r Dlatonco "o; II 1.1 · -l

~191 ~T~J 11 Tl 13 74

[nd

t Not (ndinQ ot Stf.ucturt -Safety Treated

2 Not Ending at S'ructure -Nol Safety Treated

! End1nQ at Str~Jttur• -Full- Btom COftnt:chon

4 £ndin9 ot Struct~• -Not Full-8•om Connectton

[g) 6~

Slop11 Fou [ronon Codt t. SUqftf nr Non'

2 S.11t1e tAutt-"tfl)

[/] 1&

~lop·,. F~t41

E1~lt0f'l Cod• I Sli9htor ~,. 2 S~vete ~Rut• ~Itt )

1 Po1ttlve 2. Ntuot•~•

0 ,. Jlo.pe Ou•c hon I Polthvtll

2 N•qotave

Inventory of Hazard No. 4 in Grouping (Slope)--Test Case 3

Figure V-33

V-43

0 0

0

0 0 0

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

~

ftrlft 8 !AUG. '731

ROADSIDE HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS. Check Box If Columne 5 Thru 16 Are Te It DupllcetH From Previous Form

IOIZI51SI -~ !Qiml ~ S~-N''i£~V#I'JP I t l 4 Mazon!..-

!5 • 7 ..... , lluMbot

8 , 10 c-tr Codt

II 12 15 14 15 115 c ........... __ , Sectioft .........

lt?lol~()lok:>l 17 18 19 20 21 22

FW.t Coet of lmpro¥-tl$l

40

m 40

[] 40

40

(l] [2J llridGorllil

40 42

(gJ @]&iardrllil

40 42

[2J [j] D;tcb

40 42

~ 40

r--flll*r Cool~ Collilloo 1~----, .---1 ..... _ ltJJfl----,

lolololol loltJiolol ldlaolol lololola 23242!5:111 27 211 29 »

Haaard 31 S2 55 54 3!5 M 57 58

lfolonl I_.....,

ITIJ 48 49 50 looatblftl

51 S2 Width lftl

5554 Offoot tttl

0 I. A- ond Atgrado t. lllotoll Woqo Joladlllcot...,

45

0 I \Jptrodo to Full SOfetr Stondardo 2: llolwe Lotorollr CC0111pleto Boll A hlowl

44 ). lftotoH Golordrail Along llridoeroil Foco 4.

lOX 8 (CHANGES TO EXISTING GUARDRAILS I

ruto.- Ollttt 1111 0 r-LoftOtbo" Cttl--;

ITIKOJ

Eftd

$751 Eftd

I l I

56 57 58 Eftd

MoiGfd Mnepoat IC-Ioto If Dtlloroot ,,... .., • ..,,.,,,

10 71 n n 74 7s

00 •• ltnproveme•t Rtcotnmended 40

0 SIOpoOir«:. tioft t.PQaitiVI

54 2. Nlgatl ..

0 63

51-Dirtclioe ,_,....,; .. 2 .......

Improvement Alternative No. 1, Hazard No. 4--Test Case 3 (No Improvement Recommended)

Figure V-34

V-44

I

N

FOflll A 1'""9 '131

ROADSIDE HAZARD INVENTORY

Inventory Conducted by _f£_j)_ _J1(~_!1~t:" __ __ Pate ____ of..:. ______ _

() C"eck Box If Column_~5_ Thru 24 Are to be Duplicated from Previous Inventory Form !Wo. Yr.

IP~ ~ [&?[tftJ ~~~JB] fl] ll tztzL31 ' . ' & , h 9 I[) II I~ 13 14 17

R•c.ordmo Uw-aehon

t. W'Hh ldtf•puat

18 19 20 fl 22 2-3 ..... 0)' Numbet County Code Control Number AOT I Total Boll\

Direthon• ~000·11 Octtt

~~~C!~d. ~riptlon• ~~~-CLASSIFICATION

~~ 14tillillcallon o .. crlplof CO<Io i;·odo

[/] O!f .. l Codt I. Righi

2 !Wtdlan

POINT HAZARDS

roJo~J ~ZJ~.I :W '• \? 31 M ,~ l6

Mookl• Wldtll till Gt011pino Numb•• tL•ove Bklnk I! Median lnv.nton•d on N.or Sldt Only)

LOCATION

Reference Mllepoet

Odometer Readlnt at Hazard

Milepost at Hazard

2 Atalntt MH•pOit

- -·. --~~& .... ~ -· --

--------17]?JJ5loGS"I!I

31 ~!t !9 ~0 41 42

-----'--

tl~npt for i"P•nt Haruutl told

ITJ OJ r--- Drop lnlell Only- ... --- -·--·1

ITTI -ITTI 56 !5.7 5;8 !59 60 61 62 63 64 S!!l

Width IWltfU Length tUtti.! Hei9M Ill.) or Oeplll (It)

LONGITUDINAL HAZARDS (Curbs, Bridoerails, Barriers,Guardrails, Oitches,and Retainino Walls)

o~ rHolord Olf~tt. D0 1rt.l-,

CD ITJ 52 55· 56

BtoiMlnt Eno

SLOPES

FRONT SLOPE

Vil"··v1s' ~3 M ~~ 56 &tQii\Nnt (nd

[II] ~1 !WI ~9

Holgllllfl.)or Depth (ft.)

[I] 60 61

Wldlh (W}(II.)

r---StoojHien---1

~·1 lll2Ja~ ~9 60

BeginftinQ End

~--- -·---- ---·-- --------------------2nd or BACK (Except for Level Terrain)

SLOPE ,--------- Sttepnou ------,

!frfj ~ 1 [f!fj I 1 67 68 IS TO

BtQinnino End

0 END TREATMENT------,

Guardrail Only 0 R

I. No! Boglnniftt ot Structun -Safety Tro<>ltd

2 Not BeQinntnQ at Structure -Not Sof•t) Trtotad

3 Bttinning ot Structurt­ftull- Beam Conntchon

4 BtQitJnino ot Structur.~­Nor F'uH - 8•om Conntetton

63

I Not £ndin9 at Strueturt -­Safety Treat•d

2 Not Ending ot Strut lure­Nor Scftty lrtdted

3 Endtn~ a:t Structure ~­Fu•t-8eom COI\Mttlon

4 f.ndmq .at Structure Nat Full-Seam Con.ntt"Ct•on

-------- ----

1---Di•tonce "o; 111.1-----,.

~ fllSJ [l] e• 62 63 64 reo&

Bettnntng End Slope Foe• Erotton CoM I. Slight or None

2. Sevore tRuh•llt.)

[Z} 6&

Slope O~r•<-tton

l. Postttve 2.Nogallvo

--- -·------

r·-----· Dtslonce "Dz 111.1-·· ---~--,

002] [1]f] 71 72' 73 74

Begtnning End

[l] 75

Slope F'oee Eroston Cocft I SliQIIIO< ~ ..

2 Severe tRutt:J~>Ift.)

76 S'ope D•riction I. PoaHive 2 N•;otlve

. ····· ----·· --:-·--..,..,-·~-~-· ........ _,.. ____ -~·~ ..

Inventory of Hazard No. 5 in Grouping (Slope)--Test Case 3

Figure V-35

V-45

t\1

)(

0 CD

, )( 0 CD

0 0

0

0

0 0 0

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

ftrtll 8 !AUG. '131

ROADSIDE HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS. Chec- EJox If Col"m"* 5 ThJu 16 Art To.· It Puplleettd FrOift . Previous ForM .

loktl51 ~ 12Qv··~rs1 s • 1

HiQIIwar~ 8 t 1C1 c:-tr C04t

11121314 1116

ColliN! ..... "" S.Ctioa.......,

1Piok2LII2L$1 171819202122

Finl Cotl of llllprov-tol$1

40 42

[]] 40

[[] 40

[[]

r"""-"-'' eo.t per Collilloft t$1__,.,

!Oiololol lt~I1L5'liil 25Z4U26 27 2fl .28 so

Huard .___,

~-..... llloiltee-c. •• , ... ~

loiC217L§I lt>ld1tl.Sl JIS2SS14 S5MS7iil

Noz"'d 1~1

.. 41

UTI 41 49 50 51 $2 9$4 LeMthlttl Width lftl otlut tttl

LONGITUDINAL HAZARD IMPROVEMENTS

[g) QJcurb

40 42

II] (g) lridgeroU

40 42

D ,_.._.,... ......... 2. lolllall Wedge .. oditlcotlon

4S

D_I.Ritid 2. hlll-fiti<l'

4S D 1. u,etMe .. Fun sat.t, st"""••d•

2. IIIMO LateNIIJ (c:-plote loa A hlowl 44 3. lnolall Guerdr.U Alono BridttroU Foco

4. 0.... OVer Gop 8oi .. Oft Poratlll 8ri4geo Gftd lnotoll Siatll lri....,.U (.Cooopleto .. A -I

[lJ ~-drail r3J I. R...,.. E1iotiflt Golordrail IS!) 2. U,.,.Odl "' Full Sofoty Stond.ordl IC""'"''' .lax 8 Below, •t Apptiooblol

40 42 43 3. Uligr- to Filii Sotot, Sleftdordo Gftd Cion-• Gop (Complete Boa I Bolowl 4. ciOta-up.o., •••- Eoittino Guw<~Nil c~te loa. 8 11"'"1 5. lnot<iiiGHrd;ailto ,.._, _st-llltot Bri4<ji--Moy lftc:tudo Point Hotordo 1~ IIIOIIA ..... , I. Allcllor E•IStino Guardrail to lridgeroil

[g) [I) Ditch

40 42

7. l11oloill Guonlroil -ot lr!dfo AHrooch C Cllllplole Box A Bolowl I. IMioll Guir*ail D-tifto lri ... ICoftllllt .. loa A Bolowl !1. Soltlw Treat. -tliaio FrH·E,. Dol•

0 L RotM;e to Solo Croao Socli011 2. lleflaco •llh Storm Dntift

43 S. Protect .•ith· GuOrdrail tComlllete Boa A 8olow)

Boa A (INSTALL GUARDRAIL) BOX a (CHANGES TO EXISTING GUARORAl.S)

0 Loterol Offill Ifill rutorol OftHI_ (11) 0

~~orNoar~·~~ 05 46 47 48 49 50 $1 . S2

Bttinoino End · 81...,... Elld

~ 40 44 45 .. ,...... ~

2nd or BACK SLOPE----

r-liiiOihoo Cft)--. -1

OIHIJJ

End

I ! I

56 57 58 End

70TI727S7475

r--short ... till---,

59 60 61 6ogiMillcj

62 63 64 End

D 65

51.,.~ 1."-iti .. Z.Niilloti'fe

Improvement Alternative No. 1, Hazard No. 4--Test Case 3 (Install Guardrail Departing Bridge)

Figure V-36

V-46

~

I

If)·

H A

~ HAZARD I DENT OESC END I ~ NO CODE CODE TREATMENT -...J BEG END

251 5 3 0 0 252 12 5 0 0 250 6 2 l 4

254 7 2 0 0 253 7 2 0 0

C 0 S T EFFECTIVENESS PROGRAM

l A R

SEVERITY INDEX

3.7 82.5 17.3 a.o a.o

HIGHWAY NO = 35 COUNTY NO = 97

DISTIHCT NO = 25 CONTROL NO = 2561 SECT ION NO = 8

RECORDING DIRECTION = 1 ADT (1000) = 120

LIFE = 20CYRSt INTEREST = 6.0{PERCENT t

DATE = 12-73

0 .. M p R 0

OFFSET GROUP MILE-POST IMPR IMPR SEVERITY

CODE NO BEG END ALT CODE INDEX

1 111 105.024 105.051 1 2-1-1-0 o.o 1 111 105.024 105.051 1 2-2-1-3 3.3

1 111 105.000 105.024 1 2-3-6-0 3.B

l. 111 105.051 105.086 1 2-3-8-0 3.2

1 111 104.992 105.024 1 4-o-o-o a.o

TEST CASE 3 (group hazards at bridge )

Typical Cost-Effectiveness Program Output--Test Case 3

Figure V-37

v

FIRST COST

($)

750 250 325 325

0

E M E N T

PRESENT ANNUAL COST WORTH COST EFFECTIVE

VALUE ( $, ( $/YR)

749 65 GROUP -1302 -113 GROUP -1923 -167 GRCUP -592 -51 GROUP

737 64 7

REFERENCES

1. Glennon, John C., and Tamburri, F. N., "Objective Crit.eria for Guard­rail Installation," Highway Research Record No. 174, 1967.

2. Texas Department of Public Safety, Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents, 1970.

3 .. Glennon, John C., "A Cost-Effectiveness Priority Approach for Road­side Safety Improvement Programs on Freeways," NCHRP Project 20-7, Task Order 1/1, Research Report 625-2F, Texas Trans­portation Institute, February, 1972 (Will be published by NCHRP in 1974, tentatively as NCHRP report no. 148).

4. Hutchinson, John W., and Kennedy, Thomas W .. , "Medians of Divided High­ways - Frequency and Nature of Vehicle Encroachments," University of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin 487, 1966.

APPENDIX

Included in this Appendix are photographs of roadside hazards

depicting the identification and descriptor codes for hazard inventory

purposes. Table II-1 is reprinted in the Appendix as (Table A-1) to

permit easy code reference.

It should be noted that all hazards having identification or

descriptor codes enclosed in a diamond in Table A-1 are inventoried as

point hazards. If the identification code is so designated, all de­

scriptor codes within that major classification apply to point hazard

codes. In some categories, only certain descriptor codes apply to

point hazards (ex. bridge piers, and open gap betweenparallel bridges).

TABLE A-1

IDEHTIPtc:AT.IC*. 'll'

Hazard Classification Codes DISCRIP'ftlft

1.:~~.~ ~ <®> Uttlt ty Po let

<@> Trees

<.@:;> R1g1d Signpost.

·<8> Rigid Base L.,.1na1re Support

05. Cu.rbs

06. Guardrail or Hedtan Barrter

07. Roadside Slope

08. Washout Dttch (Does not tnclud' ditch formed by 1ntersiC£1on of front and back slopes)

~ Culverts

. <@;>· Inlets

11. Roadway Under Bridge Structure

12. Roadway Over Bridge Structure

13. Retaining Wall

Denotes Potnt Hata~

rnn (00)

(00;

(. Ol! s1ngle-pole-mountea (02 double-pole.;.munted (03 tr1ple-pole~mounted (00

45

) cantilever support ( ) overhead stgn bridge

(00)

I .U) T

I o-J !!!.!!! HAZARDS

(Ol! mountable design (02 non .. mountable design less than 10 inches high (03 barrier design greater than 10 inches htgh

!~! (04)

(OS.! 1~

(01 (02 (03 (04

~~

w-sectfon with standard post spacing (6 ft-3 tn.) w-section with. other than standard post spactng approach guardrail to bridge--decreased post

spacing (3 ft·l 1n.) adjacent to bridge approach guardra n to bridge--post spacing not

decreased adjacent to bridge post and cable median fence median barrier (CHB design or equivalent)

s·ocs cut sa ope sod fill slope . concrete-faced cut slope· concrete-faced fill slope rubble rfp-rap cut slope rubble rip-rap f111 slope·

(00) '

log2

1

3

! headwall (or exposed end of pipe culvert) gap between c u 1 verts on para 11 e 1 roadways sloped culvert with grate

(04) sloped culvert without grate

(o02

1) raised drop inlet (tabletop) ( ) depressed drop inlet (03) sloped inlet

<€> bridge piers

(02) bridge abutments

~ open gap between parallel bridges 1Mi' closed gap between parallel bridges (03) rigid bridgerail--smooth and continuous construction (04) semi-rigid br1dgerait--smooth and continuous

construction (OS) other bridgera11--penetrat1on likely; severe snagging

likely; severe pocketing and snagging likely; or. vaulting likely

(06) elevated gore abutment

(00)

a. Mountable Curb Design (Code 05-01)

b. Non-mountable Curb Design Less than 10 inches High

(Code 05-02)

c. Barrier Curb Greater than 10 inches High

(Code 05-03)

Curb Hazards (Identification Code 05)

Figure A-1

A-·2

a. Safety-Treated Guardrail End (Turned Down)

b. Blunt Guardrail End--Not Safety Treated

Guardrail End Treatment

Figure A-2

A-3

a. Full Beam Strength Developed Because Rail is Carried Across Bridge

c. Full Beam Strength Developed Through 8-Bolt Connection With Washers

b. Full Beam Strength Developed Through 8-Bolt Connection

d. Construction of 8-Bolt Connection Anchor Bracket

Approach Guardrail--Full Beam Strength Connection

Figure A-3

A-4

a. Michigan End Shoe--Develops Full Beam Strength

b. Shop Fabrication--Develops Full Beam Strength

Approach Guardrail--Full-Beam Strength Connection

Figure A-4

A-5

a. One-Bolt Guardrail/Bridge Connection. Does Not Develop Beam Strength.

b. Approach Guardrail Not Connected to Bridge Leaving Open Gap and Exposed Wingwall.

Approach Guardrail--Not Full Beam Strength Connection

Figure A-5

A-6

a. BB Slope-ometer

b. Use of BB Slope-ometer to Measure Roadside Slope Ratio

Roadside Slope Measurement

Figure A-6

a. Culvert Headwall (Code 09-01)

c. Gap between Culvert Headwalls on Parallel Roads

(Code 09-02)

b. Culvert Headwall (Code 09-01)

d. Culvert with Sloped Grate (Code 09-03)

Culvert Hazards (Identificati.on Code 09)

Figure A-7

A-8

a. Raised Drop Inlet (Table-top) in Median

(Code 10-01)

b. Raised Drop Inlet (Table-top) Alongside Outer Travel Lane

(Code 10-01)

c. Curb Inlet (Inventoried as Non­MOuntable Curb Less than 10 Inches High)

(Code 05-02)

Inlet,Hazards (Identification Code 10)

Figure A-8

A-9

a. Bridge Piers Without Guardrail Protection

(Code 11-01)

b. Bridge Abutment Behind Unprotected Piers

(Code 11-02)

Hazards Associated wi_th Roadway Under Bridge Structure (Identification Code 11)

Figure A-9

A-10

a. Unprotected Open Gap Between Parallel Bridges

(Code 12-01)

c. Semi-protected Open Gap Between Parallel Bridges. Vehicle can Easily Enter Gap

(Code 12-01)

b. Open Gap Between Parallel Bridges

(Code 12-01)

d. Open Gap Semi-protected by Short Guardrail Section. Vehicle can Easily Enter Gap

(Code 12-01)

Hazards Associated with Roadway Over Bridge Structure (Identification Code 12)

Figure A-10

A-ll

a. Closed Gap Between Parallel Bridges

(Code 12-02)

b. Rigid Bridgerail--Smooth and Continuous Construction

(Code 12-03)

c. Semi-Rigid Bridgerail--Smooth and Continuous Construction

(Code 12-04)

Hazards Associated with Roadway Over Bridge Structure (Identification Code 12)

Figure A-ll

A-12