Sight distance for traffic safety analysis using GIS

Sight distance is of major importance for road safety either when designing new roads or analysing the alignment of existing roads. It is essential that available sight distance in roads is long enough for emergency stops or overtaking manoeuvres. Also, it is vital for engineers/researchers that the tools used for that analysis are both powerful and intuitive. Based on ArcGIS, the application to be presented not only performs an exhaustive sight distance calculation, but allows an accurate analysis of 3D alignment, using all new tools, from a Digital Elevation Model and vehicle trajectory. The software has been successfully utilised to analyse several two-lane rural roads in Spain. In addition, the software produces thematic maps representing sight distance in which supplementary information about crashes, traffic flow, speed or design consistency could be included, allowing traffic safety studies.

Sight distance studies on roads: influence of digital elevation models and roadside elements

Sight distance plays an important role in road traffic safety. Two types of Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) are utilized for the estimation of available sight distance in roads: Digital Terrain Models (DTMs) and Digital Surface Models (DSMs). DTMs, which represent the bare ground surface, are commonly used to determine available sight distance at the design stage. Additionally, the use of DSMs provides further information about elements by the roadsides such as trees, buildings, walls or even traffic signals which may reduce available sight distance. This document analyses the influence of three classes of DEMs in available sight distance estimation. For this purpose, diverse roads within the Region of Madrid (Spain) have been studied using software based on geographic information systems. The study evidences the influence of using each DEM in the outcome as well as the pros and cons of using each model.

Spatial analysis of geometric design consistency and road sight distance

Because of the high number of crashes occurring on highways, it is necessary to intensify the search for new tools that help in understanding their causes. This research explores the use of a geographic information system (GIS) for an integrated analysis, taking into account two accident-related factors: design consistency (DC) (based on vehicle speed) and available sight distance (ASD) (based on visibility). Both factors require specific GIS software add-ins, which are explained. Digital terrain models (DTMs), vehicle paths, road centerlines, a speed prediction model, and crash data are integrated in the GIS. The usefulness of this approach has been assessed through a study of more than 500 crashes. From a regularly spaced grid, the terrain (bare ground) has been modeled through a triangulated irregular network (TIN). The length of the roads analyzed is greater than 100 km. Results have shown that DC and ASD could be related to crashes in approximately 4% of cases. In order to illustrate the potential of GIS, two crashes are fully analyzed: a car rollover after running off road on the right side and a rear-end collision of two moving vehicles. Although this procedure uses two software add-ins that are available only for ArcGIS, the study gives a practical demonstration of the suitability of GIS for conducting integrated studies of road safety.

Sight distance requirements at lane closure work zones on urban freeways. Interim report.

Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Transportation Planning Division, Austin

Decision sight distance for highway design and traffic control requirements. Final report.

Federal Highway Administration, Office of Research, Washington, D.C.

Older driver perception-reaction time for intersection sight distance and object detection. Final report. Volume II: appendixes.

Federal Highway Administration, Office of Safety and Traffic Operations Research and Development, McLean, Va.

Older driver perception-reaction time for intersection sight distance and object detection.

"January 1995."

Study designs for passing sight distance requirements. Final report.

Federal Highway Administration, Office of Safety and Traffic Operations Research and Development, McLean, Va.

Highway sight-distance requirements: truck applications. Final report.

Mode of access: Internet.

Highway sight-distance requirements : truck applications /

Mode of access: Internet.

Executive summary and abstract for the report entitled "An evaluation of signs for sight-restricted rural intersections."".

Federal Highway Administration, Office of Research, Washington, D.C.

An evaluation of signs for sight-restricted rural intersections. Final report.

Federal Highway Administration, Office of Research, Washington, D.C.

Guidleines for Removal of Traffic Control Devices in Rural Areas, October 2005

It is commonly regarded that the overuse of traffic control devices desensitizes drivers and leads to disrespect, especially for low-volume secondary roads with limited enforcement. The maintenance of traffic signs is also a tort liability concern, exacerbated by unnecessary signs. The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Traffic Control Devices Handbook provide guidance for the implementation of STOP signs based on expected compliance with right-of-way rules, provision of through traffic flow, context (proximity to other controlled intersections), speed, sight distance, and crash history. The approach(es) to stop is left to engineering judgment and is usually dependent on traffic volume or functional class/continuity of system. Although presently being considered by the National Committee on Traffic Control Devices, traffic volume itself is not given as a criterion for implementation in the MUTCD. STOP signs have been installed at many locations for various reasons which no longer (or perhaps never) met engineering needs. If in fact the presence of STOP signs does not increase safety, removal should be considered. To date, however, no guidance exists for the removal of STOP signs at two-way stop-controlled intersections. The scope of this research is ultra-low-volume (< 150 daily entering vehicles) unpaved intersections in rural agricultural areas of Iowa, where each of the 99 counties may have as many as 300 or more STOP sign pairs. Overall safety performance is examined as a function of a county excessive use factor, developed specifically for this study and based on various volume ranges and terrain as a proxy for sight distance. Four conclusions are supported: (1) there is no statistical difference in the safety performance of ultra-low-volume stop-controlled and uncontrolled intersections for all drivers or for younger and older drivers (although interestingly, older drivers are underrepresented at both types of intersections); (2) compliance with stop control (as indicated by crash performance) does not appear to be affected by the use or excessive use of STOP signs, even when adjusted for volume and a sight distance proxy; (3) crash performance does not appear to be improved by the liberal use of stop control; (4) safety performance of uncontrolled intersections appears to decline relative to stop-controlled intersections above about 150 daily entering vehicles. Subject to adequate sight distance, traffic professionals may wish to consider removal of control below this threshold. The report concludes with a section on methods and legal considerations for safe removal of stop control.

Chevrons and Oversized Chevrons, 2014

Chevrons provide additional emphasis and guidance for drivers. If spaced properly, chevrons can delineate the curve so drivers can interpret the sharpness of the curve. Table 2C-2 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (FHWA 2009a) recommends the size of chevron alignment (W1-8) signs by roadway type. Several agencies, including the Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT), have applied a larger chevron size to a roadway than suggested by this table. The idea is that larger chevrons will be more prominent and visible to drivers. These larger chevrons may be particularly useful if sight distance issues exist.

Guidelines for Removal of Traffic Control Devices in Rural Areas, TR-527, 2005

It is commonly regarded that the overuse of traffic control devices desensitizes drivers and leads to disrespect, especially for low-volume secondary roads with limited enforcement. The maintenance of traffic signs is also a tort liability concern, exacerbated by unnecessary signs. The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Traffic Control Devices Handbook provide guidance for the implementation of STOP signs based on expected compliance with right-of-way rules, provision of through traffic flow, context (proximity to other controlled intersections), speed, sight distance, and crash history. The approach(es) to stop is left to engineering judgment and is usually dependent on traffic volume or functional class/continuity of system. Although presently being considered by the National Committee on Traffic Control Devices, traffic volume itself is not given as a criterion for implementation in the MUTCD. STOP signs have been installed at many locations for various reasons which no longer (or perhaps never) met engineering needs. If in fact the presence of STOP signs does not increase safety, removal should be considered. To date, however, no guidance exists for the removal of STOP signs at two-way stop-controlled intersections. The scope of this research is ultra-low-volume (< 150 daily entering vehicles) unpaved intersections in rural agricultural areas of Iowa, where each of the 99 counties may have as many as 300 or more STOP sign pairs. Overall safety performance is examined as a function of a county excessive use factor, developed specifically for this study and based on various volume ranges and terrain as a proxy for sight distance. Four conclusions are supported: (1) there is no statistical difference in the safety performance of ultra-low-volume stop-controlled and uncontrolled intersections for all drivers or for younger and older drivers (although interestingly, older drivers are underrepresented at both types of intersections); (2) compliance with stop control (as indicated by crash performance) does not appear to be affected by the use or excessive use of STOP signs, even when adjusted for volume and a sight distance proxy; (3) crash performance does not appear to be improved by the liberal use of stop control; (4) safety performance of uncontrolled intersections appears to decline relative to stop-controlled intersections above about 150 daily entering vehicles. Subject to adequate sight distance, traffic professionals may wish to consider removal of control below this threshold. The report concludes with a section on methods and legal considerations for safe removal of stop control.