1. Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Safety Investment Program (SIP) Policies for Oregon Literature Review Findings

2. Organization of Literature Review ODOT Highway Safety Program Balancing Safety and Pavement Preservation Identification and Ranking Methodologies

3. ODOT Highway Safety Program ODOT Project Safety Management System Hazard Elimination Program (HEP) Safety Priority Index System (SPIS) Safety Investment Program (SIP) Road Features Rating System (RFRS) -- Under development

4. ODOT Highway Safety Program ODOT Highway Design Manual -- AASHTO Design Standards -- ODOT 4R/New Design Standard -- ODOT 3-R Design Standard ODOT 1-R and Single Function Project Standards

5. Balancing Safety and Pavement Preservation Historic Pavement Preservation Policies Resurfacing and Safety Various State 3R Programs & Design Policies Funding Allocation: System Optimization Cost-Effective Assessment

6. Resurfacing and Safety Cleveland (1987) – Rural Road Safety after Resurfacing Immediate increase in overall crashes of 2% Increase in overall crash severity of 10% (injuries & fatalities) [Noted increase in vehicle speeds as well] Dry pavement crashes increased by 10% while wet pavement crashes similarly decreased

7. Resurfacing and Safety Cleveland (1987) – Resurfaced Urban Road Safety after Resurfacing Average resurfacing life time crash reduction of 25% overall Average resurfacing life time crash reduction of 25% for crash severity

8. Resurfacing and Safety Agent (2004) – Kentucky Resurfacing Study Overall number of crashes did not decline after road resurfacing (though reduction during wet conditions did occur) Observed vehicle speeds did not change dramatically following resurfacing

9. Resurfacing and Safety NCHRP (2001) – WA & MN Resurfacing Study Effects of resurfacing varied between states 18% reduction in WA number of crashes but 25% increase in MN Safety consistently improved as the pavement aged

10. Resurfacing and Safety Hauer et al. (1994) – NY Resurfacing Study Fast Track Projects (only resurfacing) vs. Reconditioning and Preservation (R&P) Projects Safety initially declined in fast track projects, while it improved for the R&P projects As pavement aged (6 to 7 years) safety improved

11. State 3R Programs & Design Policies -- Overview Geometric Design Standards / Guidelines for 3R-type projects (32 states) Resurfacing Project Selection – most states do not include crash history Process to Determine Safety needs for Resurfacing projects – site crash history, safety features condition, cost- effectiveness, design criteria, local demands, and skid testing

12. State 3R Programs & Design Policies – Overview (cont.) Established Procedures for Safety at Resurfacing Projects (5-year crash history, review of high crash sites, identification of countermeasures) Policies & Procedures for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (design standards, ROADSIDE program, agency-specific procedures, & NCHRP Report 214 guidelines) Other approaches: Resource allocation tools, individual state research, post-resurfacing evaluations

13. State 3R Programs & Design Policies – Research Sanford et al. (1981) – IL assessment of 2- lane rural highways – concluded project cost exceed crash reduction savings Mahoney et al. (2006) – multi-state scanning study (CO, WA, PA, NY, UT, & IA)– each state identifies rehabilitation projects based on pavement condition rather than safety

14. Cost-Effective Assessment Crash-Based Method Benefit-Cost Ratio Benefit Assessment Cost Assessment

15. Identification and Ranking Methods Crash Frequency Method Crash Density Method Crash/Accident Rate Method Quality Control Method Crash Severity or Severity Rate Method Index Method Other Methods