Identifying Wrong-Way Driving Hotspots by Modeling Crash Risk and Assessing Duration of Wrong-Way Driving Events

Wrong-way driving (WWD) crashes are a critical safety issue on freeways. Although these crashes are rare and random in nature, they often result in severe injuries and/or fatalities. Typically, exit ramp terminals are the initial point of entry for wrong-way (WW) drivers on freeways. Therefore, it is important for transportation agencies to identify the exit ramp terminals with higher possibility of WW entries and apply safety countermeasures to reduce the chances of their occurrence. However, the random nature of WWD crashes and the difficulty in identifying the actual entry points makes it hard for transportation agencies to assess the risk of WWD at a particular exit ramp terminal and apply countermeasures accordingly. This study developed mathematical models for predicting the risk of WW entries at the exit ramp terminals of full diamond interchanges. The geometric design features, usage of traffic control devices, area type where the interchanges are located, and annual average daily traffic (AADT) at the exit ramp terminals with or without history of WWD were used as potential predictors of WW entry. Transportation agencies can use these models to assess the risk of WW entries at the exit ramp terminals within their jurisdictions and consider possible countermeasures. They also can be applied during the design phase to determine the combination of geometric design features and traffic control devices that ensures the least possibility of WW entry.

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling the Risk of Wrong-Way Driving Entry at the Exit Ramp Terminals of Full Diamond Interchanges

Atiquzzaman

Zhou

2018

“…This paper will estimate these future savings because of LED and RFB countermeasures for the FTE system. Previous efforts by the authors show the ability of the developed WWCR modeling and optimization approach to accurately identify limited access segments with high WWCR and predict WWCR reductions for individual exits (7,(21)(22)(23)(24)(25). By incorporating injury costs for WWD crashes, this approach can be used to determine the life-cycle benefits of advanced WWD countermeasure deployments, calculate B/C ratios for individual exits, and compare RFB and LED countermeasures.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating Fatality and Injury Savings Because of Deployment of Advanced Wrong-Way Driving Countermeasures on a Toll Road Network

Sandt

Al-Deek

2021

Self Cite

Limited access facility wrong-way driving (WWD) crashes are typically more severe than other crashes. Deploying advanced WWD countermeasures, such as rectangular flashing beacon (RFB) and light-emitting diode (LED) technologies, at exit ramps can reduce WWD crashes, injuries, and fatalities. No previous research has developed a methodology to quantify the potential fatality and injury savings because of future countermeasure deployments. This paper developed such a methodology and applied it to Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise (FTE) toll road network. From 2011–2016, there were 53 FTE WWD crashes, resulting in 16 fatalities and annual injury costs of $37 million. The proportion of these crashes occurring during night-time was 87%. RFB and LED life-cycle injury savings and costs were determined for all 216 FTE exits. The total savings were $424 million for RFBs (benefit–cost [B/C] ratio of 23.20) and $144 million for LEDs (B/C ratio of 13.13). Deploying countermeasures at the 103 exits with the highest B/C ratios would provide 70% of the total possible savings by equipping 40% of the ramps. For the same capital investment, RFBs provide more savings than LEDs. Spending $1 million to deploy RFBs will provide similar savings as spending $3.4 million to deploy LEDs. Evaluating the existing FTE RFB and LED ramps shows that RFBs are more effective at night-time and can provide three times the savings of LEDs. The results of this paper show the improved performance of RFBs over LEDs and provide an example that other agencies could follow to identify savings and cost-effectively deploy advanced WWD countermeasures.

“…This research included a benefit-cost analysis of these LED WWD countermeasures resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 13.1, however details of this analysis were not found (12). UCF researchers have built models to predict WWD crashes and non-crash events using various roadway characteristics and driver demographics, developed an optimization approach to help agencies effectively deploy WWD countermeasures, surveyed drivers and law enforcement officers about WWD behavior, analyzed the factors that affect law enforcement response time to WWD events, and evaluated LED and RFB WWD countermeasures installed on toll roads in South and Central Florida (1,(5)(6)(7)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21). However, none of this previous research involved benefit-cost analyses of ITS WWD countermeasures.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benefit–Cost Analyses of Rectangular Flashing Beacon Wrong-Way Driving Countermeasures on Toll Road Exit Ramps in Florida

Sandt

Al-Deek

Kayes

et al. 2019

Self Cite

In recent years, rectangular flashing beacons (RFBs) and other technologies have been used as wrong-way driving (WWD) countermeasures on limited access facilities. Studies have shown that these devices effectively reduce WWD, but no research has compared the financial benefits and costs of these countermeasures. Three different methodologies were used to conduct benefit–cost analyses for RFB WWD countermeasures installed on Central Florida toll road exit ramps. The studied benefits included savings from reductions in WWD crashes, non-crash events, and injuries, whereas costs included equipment, installation, and maintenance costs. For the first two methodologies, the reduction in WWD crash risk (WWCR) at the RFB-equipped ramps was determined. This WWCR considered non-crash WWD events, interchange design, and traffic volumes. Different measures of effectiveness (turn-around percentage of detected wrong-way vehicles at the RFB ramps and reduction in WWD 911 calls and citations at the RFB interchanges compared with similar comparison interchanges without RFBs) were used in these two methodologies to estimate the WWCR reduction and associated savings. For the third methodology, the relationship between WWD crashes and non-crash events was used to determine the average savings for WWD 911 calls and citations. Before–after analyses were then conducted to determine the individual reductions in WWD 911 calls and citations. Applying these three methods resulted in life-cycle benefit–cost ratios ranging from 2.49 to 4.10 (crash savings) and from 4.77 to 7.20 (injury savings). Other agencies could use these methodologies to determine the benefits of WWD countermeasures or other technologies with limited crash data.