ONGOING UW-MADISONDVC-RELATED RESEARCH

Some Preliminary Results

UW-MadisonPyle Center

February 4, 2003

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressorare needed to see this picture. QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressorare needed to see this picture.

TWO STUDIES• Evaluation of Warning Sign Locations

and Nearby DVC Patterns

• Development of Wisconsin County-Level DVC Prediction Models

SIGN/CRASH STUDY• DVCs Near Signs have Never been

Systematically Considered

• This is Not a Study of Crossing Sign Effectiveness

• Assumption: Signs are in Locations with Higher than Typical DVC Numbers

• Five WI Counties Chosen after a DVC and Carcass Removal Data Evaluation

• Considered 3 Years of DVC Data near 72 Signs Grouped within 30 Roadway Segments

SIGN/CRASH STUDY (Cont.)• Segment Group Definition:

The Ends of Each Segment were 2 Miles from the Last Signs in Each Direction Included within a Group

All the Signs in a Roadway Segment Group were within 2 Miles of Each other or the End of the Segment

SIGN/CRASH STUDY (Cont.)• Preliminary Analysis Conclusions:

DVCs per Mile and DVC Rate (per VMT) Found to be Statistically Higher Between Signs

28 Groups had Higher than State DVC Average Rate Between Signs

“Between” Sign Rate was Approximately 4 Times Higher than the State Average and “Outside” Rate was 2 Times Higher than the State Average

• Preliminary Thoughts on Interpretation

COUNTY MODEL STUDY• At Least Two County Models Exist in

Other States• Data from 12 WI Counties Eliminated

from Use Lack of Data Unusual Annual Variability in Reported DVCs Deviations from Typical County and Statewide

Variability Deviations from Typical County and Statewide

Trends

COUNTY MODEL STUDY (Cont.)

• Data from 54 Counties used in Development and 6 for Ongoing Validation

• Illinois Model Applied and Determined to be Inappropriate for Wisconsin

• Three WI Models Developed with Almost 20 Input Variables Considered along with Their Interactions and Higher Order Forms

COUNTY MODEL STUDY (Cont.)

• Some of the County Input Variables Considered: Deer Density and Populations Human Density and Populations Traffic Volume (VMT and AADT) Roadway Length and Density Acreages: Recreational Areas, Farmland,

Woodland and Timberland Average Season Snow Depth

COUNTY MODEL STUDY (Cont.)

• County Models Developed: DVCs per Land Area

DVC Rate (per VMT)

DVCs per Year

R2 = 0.64 to 0.82

COUNTY MODEL STUDY (Cont.)

• Some Variables with Significance: Deer Density Human Density VMT Roadway Density Snow Depth Timberland/Woodland/Recreational Acreages

• Models Might be Useful to Predict County & State Numbers and Determine Impacts of Physical Changes

CONCLUSIONS

• Research Projects are Additional Benefit of UW-Madison Clearinghouse

• Research Work will be Finalized Soon

• Expected that Results will be Presented within Region/Nationally and Shared on Website

• Students Graduating with Safety Expertise in this Area another Benefit of UW-Madison Clearinghouse

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION