April 7, 2009 Presented by: Tom Welch State Transportation Safety Engineer

1. IA-330/US-65/IA-117 & IA-330/F-17 Jasper County Intersections Discussion of Design Alternatives April 7, 2009 Presented by: Tom Welch State Transportation Safety Engineer Prepared with the Assistance of: Dr. Tom Maze & Joshua Hochstein – Iowa State University Iowa State University’s Center for Transportation Research and Education (CTRE) administers the following programs: Bridge Engineering Center • Center for Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Technology • Construction Management & Technology • Iowa Local Technical Assistance Program • Iowa Statewide Urban Design and Specifications• Iowa Traffic Safety Data Service • Midwest Transportation Consortium • Partnership for Geotechnical Advancement • Roadway Infrastructure Management Systems

2. DEFINING THE PROBLEMWith Traditional Expressway Intersection Design • Typical Problem: Far-Side Right-Angle Collisions

3. DEFINING THE PROBLEMWith Traditional Expressway Intersection Design Typical Far-Side Right-Angle Collision * Courtesy of University of Minnesota Intersection Surveillance System Test Bed at US-52 & CSAH-9, Goodhue County, MN 6:42 AM CDT

4. Fatal Crash at US-151 & X-20, Springville, IA (Feb. 4, 2009)

5. F-17 US-65 IA-330 US-65 Locations: IA-330 at County Road F-17 & IA-330/US-65/IA-117 Jasper County IA-330 IA-117

7. IA-330/US-65/IA-117 Fatalities: Christopher Carver 34 Newton, Iowa Walton Cain 82 Chariton, Iowa Norma Smith 74 Colfax, Iowa Betty Spangler 84 Sheridan, Wyoming Major Injuries: Lori Ledger 46 Eldora, Iowa Leslie Hobson 44 Whitten, Iowa Betty Cain 77 Chariton, Iowa Tiffany Cooper 31 Indianola, Iowa Mary Mull 66 Marshalltown, Iowa John Mead 78 Marshalltown, Iowa Becky Deimerly 56 Marshalltown, Iowa Jennifer Kniss 20 Colo, Iowa Catherine Leonard 55 Marshalltown, Iowa Louise Yoder 66 Broken Arrow, Oklahoma

8. IA-330/US-65 & US-65/IA-117 Collision Diagram 2003 - 2008 Total = 43 or 7.17/year 4 Fatal 22 Injury 17 PDO 38 Right-Angle (88%) 36 Far-Side 2 Near-Side 2 Left-Turn Leaving (5%) 3 Rear-End (7%)

9. CRASH TYPES: IA-330/US-65 & US-65/IA-117 Far-Side Right-Angle Crashes ARE a Problem! 95% of Right-Angle are “Far-Side” at IA-330/US-65 & US-65/IA-117

10. CRASH SEVERITY: IA-330/US-65 & US-65/IA-117 Maze et al., 2004 [page 79] More Fatal & Major Injury Crashes Occur at IA-330/US-65 & US-65/IA-117 Than on Average

11. MINOR ROAD DRIVER AGE IN RIGHT-ANGLE CRASHES AT IA-330/US-65 & US-65/IA-117 Elderly Drivers More Involved in these Collisions

13. IA-330 and Co Rd F-17 Fatalities: Opal Kassel* 79 Nevada, Iowa Brian Cole 47 Indianola, Iowa Major Injuries: Walter Donahue 78 Kamrar, Iowa Dorothy Donahue 73 Kamrar, Iowa Craig Hudson 16 Collins, Iowa * Driver was former DOT Director

14. IA-330 & F-17 Total = 15 or 2.50/year 2 Fatal 8 Injury 5 PDO Collision Diagram 2003 - 2008 15 Right-Angle (100%) 11 Far-Side 4 Near-Side

15. CRASH TYPES: IA-330 & F-17 Far-Side Right-Angle Crashes ARE a Problem! 73% of Right-Angle are “Far-Side” at IA-330 & F-17

16. CRASH SEVERITY: IA-330 & F-17 Maze et al., 2004 [page 79] More Fatal & Major Injury Crashes Occur at IA-330 & F-17 Than on Average

17. MINOR ROAD DRIVER AGE IN RIGHT-ANGLE CRASHES AT IA-330 & F-17 Elderly Drivers More Involved in these Collisions

18. Highway Crashes are Complex • Driver conditions and behavior • A contributing factor in 95 percent of crashes • Primary factor in 67 percent of crashes • Roadway design and environment • A contributing factor in 28 percent of crashes • Primary factor in 4 percent of crashes • Vehicle • A contributing factor in 8 percent of crashes • Primary factor in 4 percent of crashes

19. YOUNG & ELDERLY DRIVERS Vision and Cognition Challenges Peripheral Vision is important to making judgements about placement, speed, and gaps in moving traffic • Young drivers are still developing peripheral vision • Along with other vision changes, older drivers also begin to lose peripheral vision

20. The Teen Brain Is Still Under Construction • Recent Scientific studies reveal that the teen brain is still under construction until about age 25. • The Prefrontal Cortex is the last part to develop. It also controls: • risk-taking • judgment • impulse control • speed assessment • distance assessment • ability to handle distractions

21. Medical Factors - Aging Drivers Eye Lens • The lens of the eye becomes cloudy and yellow with age, giving faulty information for driving decisions. Depth Perception • With age, people lose depth perception and peripheral vision making it harder to judge distance and speed Needed Light • A 50-year-old needs 5 times more light to read than a 20-year old. • At 60 he’ll need 10 times more light

22. ALTERNATIVES:

23. National Academies of Science Transportation Research Board Project 15-30 Median Intersection Design for Rural High-Speed Divided Highways 2009 Principal Investigator: Dr. Thomas Maze PHD, P.E. Joshua Hochstein, Ph.D. Student Iowa State University

24. SIGNALIZATION • Creates Expressway Traffic Delay • Not Expected by Expressway Drivers • Don’t Necessarily Improve Safety (Change Crash Types, Not Severity) • Signals at the bottom of a hill are not desirable

25. DRIVER EDUCATION:

26. Does Driver Education Reduce Crashes?... No. “The DeKalb County project-conducted in the U.S. in the late 1970s and early 1980s to evaluate the effectiveness of a comprehensive driver education program-stands as the most large scale, well-designed and ambitious effort to assess the impact of formal instruction. Despite the different methods and statistical procedures that have been applied to the data, however, the findings have been extremely consistent and disappointing to the driver education community- driver education was not associated with reliable or significant decreases in crash involvement.” Effectiveness And Role Of Driver Education And Training In A Graduated Licensing System:D. R. Mayhew and H. M. Simpson; • Date: 1996-09-09 Supported by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety The full report at www.Drivers.com

27. The studies conclude that typical driver training does not change behavior. For example it: does not motivate drivers to use what they have learned; does not offset inherent risk behaviors; does not address lifestyle and related psychosocial factors; does not carry a sustained knowledge or performance expectation that the driver will be tested or held accountable. (“Study only for the test and forget the rest.”) Even worse, instruction may encourage some drivers to feel over-competent enough to take more risks, off-setting the value of learning safety tactics. Why Doesn’t Driver Education Reduce Crashes?

28. Drivers Reality Check • Knowledge doesn’t always translate to correct actions • There is no substitute for experience

29. INCREASED ENFORCEMENT: “It is generally considered that fear of arrest and punishment causes drivers to conform better to traffic laws and regulations and thus reduces accidents. On the other hand, there is evidence to suggest that enforcement crusades have little lasting effect. For example, in several experiments vehicle speeds and driver behavior were recorded before and after an intensive enforcement effort. No significant changes were found either in speeds or in the number of law violations. Other studies have shown that many drivers ignore speed limit and speed zone signs that do not conform with their usual driving habits.” Dr. Clarkson H. Oglesby Stanford University

30. Jasper Co. Sherriff Department Comments

31. Failure To Yield Right-of-Way Crashes2004 -2008 5-year average per/year Vehicle Type that got pulled in front of Average annual crashes reported 8 ft 16ft 16 ft 17 ft 18 ft 66 ft 149 Motorcycle 4742 Passenger car 815 Sport utility vehicle 738 Van or mini-van 1224 Pickup, van, small bus 269 Large Trucks This depicts crashes involving a causal driver who failed to yield the right-of-way to another vehicle at an intersection

32. Diamond Interchange Cost Estimate: ≈ $7-10 Million Safety Effectiveness Estimate:≈ 60 – 80%

33. OFFSET T-INTERSECTION (Right-Left Configuration) Cost Estimate: ≈ $3 Million ± Safety Effectiveness Estimate: ≈ 40% Reduction Reduces Conflict Points from 42 to 26

35. OFFSET T-INTERSECTIONS 26 Conflict Points 10 Crossing 16 Merge/Diverge

36. OFFSET T-INTERSECTIONS

37. J-TURN ALTERNATIVES

38. THE J-TURN INTERSECTION The J-Turn Intersection utilizes a directional median opening which closes the median to minor road traffic, but still allows all maneuvers (including left-turns) from the expressway.

39. THE J-TURN INTERSECTION Closing the median eliminates direct crossing and left-turn maneuvers from the minor road, thus preventing far-side right-angle collisions. Emergency vehicles can still cross median.

40. THE J-TURN INTERSECTION All minor road traffic must turn right at the main intersection. Minor road drivers who wish to cross or turn left must do so indirectly via a downstream U-turn.

41. THE J-TURN INTERSECTION Out-of-the-way travel distance depends on spacing of U-turns, but 1500 to 5000 feet extra travel can be expected for a J-Turn Intersection. However, because the movements involved are less complex, the total delay time for indirect left-turn & crossing maneuvers may be equivalent to that of direct maneuvers at a traditional at-grade intersection.

42. Interchanges also involve out-of-the-way travel Typical Diamond = approximately 750 feet extra

43. Typical loop ramp = approx. 2200 feet extra

45. THE J-TURN INTERSECTION The J-Turn Intersection reduces the total number of intersection conflict points from 42 to 24, reduces the crossing conflicts from 24 to 4, and spreads out the conflict points over a larger area.

46. J-TURN INTERSECTION SIGNAGE EXAMPLE

47. J-TURN ALTERNATIVE (IA-330/US-65/IA-117) Approximate Proposed U-Turn Spacing From Main Intersection: ≈ 2250 feet ≈ 1100 feet

48. J-TURN ALTERNATIVE (IA-330/F-17) Approximate Proposed U-Turn Spacing From Main Intersection: ≈ 900 feet ≈ 1600 feet

49. J-TURN INTERSECTION MARYLAND TESTIMONY • City Council Members Initially Opposed to the J-Turn Design Option (Wanted Overpass/Interchange) • Couldn’t imagine how it could possibly work • Thought it would be too complex for elderly • After J-Turn was constructed, it became obvious safety was improved • “Can’t deny that it was a measure important for safety” • U-Turn improves sight lines (provides a better visibility angle for viewing oncoming traffic in both lanes) • J-Turn cheaper than an Overpass/Interchange • $800,000 vs $8,000,000 (Allows DOT to spend same $ on more projects across the state – Approximately 10 J-Turn Intersections can be built for the price of 1 interchange).

50. J-TURN INTERSECTION SAFETY EVALUATION MARYLAND (US-301 & MD-313) 4 Years Before, 6 Years After • 92% crash reduction overall (8.25 to 0.67 crashes/year) • 100% reduction in right-angle collisions (22 to 0) • 100% reduction in fatal/injury crashes (23 to 0) All statistically significant reductions (90% confidence).