NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

 

August 2011

& the Office of Modal Safety and Security

CCEENNTTEERRLLIINNEE RRUUMMBBLLEE SSTTRRIIPPSS

oonn SSEECCOONNDDAARRYY HHIIGGHHWWAAYYSS

AA SSYYSSTTEEMMAATTIICC CCRRAASSHH AANNAALLYYSSIISS

[2] 

 

LIST OF PREPARERS

Author:

Richard D. Wilder, P.E., Design Services Bureau

Contributors:

Richard Lee, P.E., Office of Design

Barbara O’Rourke, Office of Modal Safety and Security

Don Terry, Office of Modal Safety and Security

Andrew Sattinger, Office of Modal Safety and Security

Terry Hale, P.E., Design Quality Assurance Bureau

Kara Phillips, RLA, Design Services Bureau

Emmett R. McDevitt, FHWA

Christine Thorkildsen, FHWA

[3] 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction

2. Centerline Rumble Strips

a. Literature Review

b. Practices of Other States

c. NYSDOT Experience

d. Selection Criteria

e. Design

f. Statewide Crash Data

g. National Crash Reduction Factors

h. Safety Benefit/ Crash Cost Analysis

i. Summary and Recommendations

3. References

Appendix A - Highway Data

LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 – Safety Benefit Analysis Flow Chart

Exhibit 2 – Centerline Rumble Strip Practices in the U.S.

Exhibit 3 – CLRS in Other States

Exhibit 4 – Wet Weather Pavement Markings on Rumble Strips in Michigan

Exhibit 5 – Centerline Rumble Strips in PA

Exhibit 6 – Centerline Rumble Strip Practices in NYS

Exhibit 7 – Rumble Strip Design

Exhibit 8 – Summary of New York State Non-Intersection Head-On and Sideswipe Crashes

Exhibit 9 – Statewide Head-On and Side-Swipe Fatal Crashes

Exhibit 10 – Head-On and Side-Swipe Fatal Crashes on State Highways Suitable for CARDs

Exhibit 11 – National Crash Reduction Factors

Exhibit 12 – Safety Benefits of Centerline Rumble Strips  

[4] 

 

 

1. INTRODUCTION

On an average day in the United States, 23 people die in non-intersection head-on crashes; 30 percent of which are under the age of 25. For all roads, two-thirds of the fatal crashes are related to vehicles on tangents “going straight.” In New York State there are about 120 deaths and 3,500 injuries from non-intersection head-on and opposite-direction sideswipe-crashes each year.

The primary causes for roadway departures are distracted drivers, drowsy drivers, drunk drivers, and inclement weather (including poor visibility). Centerline rumble strips are a proven countermeasure that could significantly reduce lane departure deaths and serious injuries.

Rumble strips are intended to save lives and prevent serious injuries by alerting drivers that they are leaving the driving lane. They consist of raised or grooved patterns on the roadway. They provide driver with both an audible warning (rumbling sound) and a physical vibration. Rumble strips may be installed on the roadway shoulder, or on the centerline of undivided highways. Rumble strips are used primarily on expressways and freeways in New York, but many (approximately 25) states use them on non-freeways. Rumble strips on the freeways in New York State are referred as milled in audible roadway delineators (MIRADs). Rumble strips in the centerline are referred to as centerline audible roadway delineators (CARDs).

Studies from the national academy of science and the experiences of other states that have been using CARDs for over 10 years show the significant life saving ability of CARDs.

National Cooperative Highway Research (NCHRP) Project 17-18 Task 19 Alternate Strategies for Safety Improvement Investments, January, 2010, states that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has implemented a policy change in the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) to specifically emphasize the prevention of fatal and serious injury crashes. Because of the random, widely distributed nature of severe crashes, new approaches and analytical techniques are required. Roadway departure crashes are a good example of where a systematic approach is beneficial. A number of states have indicated that they use this approach and an example is provided that the systematic approach focuses on safety measures over longer roadway segments, such as rumble strips on rural two-lane highways.

AASHTO’s report Driving Down Lane Departures, April, 2009 places a national priority on reducing lane departure crashes. The report emphasizes rumble strips as a proven life saving measure and states:

“A key concept here is a systematic approach. Oftentimes we act to improve a high-incident location, when there may be another identical situation elsewhere on our system. The improvements described in this report are most effective when they are applied throughout the highway system, as a means to prevent future crashes from occurring.”

[5] 

 

This report was prepared to evaluate the potential locations and recommend the best way to implement the proven life saving benefits CARDs in New York State. A crash analysis was performed to determine the potential effect of installing centerline rumble strips on limited segments of non-freeway state highways. National and New York State crash data and geometric data were reviewed and are summarized in this report.

The safety and engineering analysis process is outlined below:

EXHIBIT 1 – SAFETY BENEFIT ANALYSIS FLOW CHART

   

[6] 

 

 

2. CENTERLINE RUMBLE STRIPS Literature Review NCHRP 641 Guidance for the Design and Application of Shoulder and Centerline Rumble Strips, TRB, 2009 includes a comprehensive list of over 120 references. In addition to a thorough review of this report, the following documents were reviewed:

1. Russell, E.R., RYS, M.J., Centerline Rumble Strips, NCHRP Synthesis 339, TRB, 2005.

2. Miller, K.W., Effects of Center-Line Rumble Strips on Non-Conventional Vehicles, Minnesota DOT, 2008.

3. FHWA, Rumble Strip Website.

4. Hallmark, S., McDonald, T., Evaluation of Rumble Stripes on Low-Volume Rural Roads in Iowa – Phase I, Institute for Transportation, Iowa State University, July, 2009.

5. Outcalt, W., Centerline Rumble Strips, Colorado DOT, August, 2001.

6. Bachman, D., “Rumble Strips: Finding a Design for Bicycles and Motor Vehicles,” Transportation Research News 215, TRB, July-August, 2001.

7. Washington State DOT Rumble Strip Website [http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Design/Policy/RumbleStrips.htm], Accessed in 2010.

8. FHWA Priority, Market-Ready Technologies and Innovations List Website [http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/crt/lifecycle/rumblestrips.cfm], Accessed in 2010.

9. Nevada DOT Centerline Rumble Strips Website [http://www.nevadadot.com/safety/improvements/rumblestrips.asp], Accessed in 2010.

10. Amparano, G, Morena, D. A., “Senior Mobility Series: Article 4 – Marking the Way to Greater Safety” Public Roads, Vol 70, No. 1., TFHRC, July/August, 2006.

11. Preston, H., Alternate Strategies for Safety Improvement Investments, NCHRP Project 17-18 Task 19, TRB, January, 2010.

The literature shows that centerline rumble strips are a particularly effective safety device on undivided high-speed roads where there is no median or room for barriers to separate opposing lanes of traffic. They are effective in both rural and urban environments. Centerline rumble strips are reported to:

• Help prevent head-on, sideswipe and opposite direction run-off-the-road collisions.

• Be very cost-effective with B/C ratios of up to 75 to 1.

• Be relatively fast to install.

[7] 

 

• Be safe for motorcyclists since CARDs were tested for motorcyclist safety by MnDOT as part of K.W. Miller, Effects of Center-Line Rumble Strips on Non-Conventional Vehicles, 2008 and found to “add no measurable risk to motorcyclists.”

• Improve visibility of pavement markings, particularly in wet-night conditions.

Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) July 10, 2008 letter “Consideration and Implementation of Proven Safety Countermeasures,” states: “Rumble strips or rumble stripes should be provided on all new rural freeways and on all new rural two-lane highways with travel speeds of 50 mph or greater.” It also states:

“Policies should consider installation of centerline rumble strips (or stripes) on rural 2-lane road projects where the lane plus shoulder width beyond the rumble strip will be at least 13’ wide; particularly roadways with higher traffic volumes, poor geometrics, or a history of head-on and opposite-direction sideswipe crashes.”

“The Office of Safety believes that widespread implementation of these safety countermeasures can serve to accelerate the achievement of local, State and national safety goals.” The list of safety countermeasures includes rumble strips.

AASHTO’s report Driving Down Lane Departures, April, 2009 places a national priority on reducing lane departure crashes. The report emphasizes rumble strips as a proven life saving measure and states:

“A key concept here is a systematic approach. Oftentimes we act to improve a high-incident location, when there may be another identical situation elsewhere on our system. The improvements described in this report are most effective when they are applied throughout the highway system, as a means to prevent future crashes from occurring.”

[8] 

 

Other State Practices

EXHIBIT 2 – CENTERLINE RUMBLE STRIP PRACTICES IN THE U.S.

State or Province* Placement

Minimum requirements for installation

Dimensions

ADT Speed Width Depth

Alabama* Into lane N N - -

Alaska 12” 0.5”

Arkansas* Within PM N N - -

Arizona* Within PM into lane N N - -

California - - - - -

Colorado* Within PM N N 12” 0.375”

Delaware* into lane N N 16” 0.5”

Hawaii - - - 18”-24” -

Idaho* Within PM into lane N N - -

Iowa* Into lane N N - -

Kansas - - - 12” 0.5”

Kentucky* Into lane N N 24” 0.5”-0.625”

Maine* Into lane N N - -

Maryland - - - 18”-24” 0.5”

Massachusetts - - - 16” 0.5”

Michigan - - - 16” 0.375”

Minnesota* Beside PM N 50 mph 12”-16” 0.5”

Missouri* Within PM N N 12” 0.5”

Nebraska - - - 16” 0.5”-0.625”

Nevada* Into lane N N - -

North Carolina* Into lane beside PM N N - -

Oregon* Within PM into lane N N 16” 0.5”

[9] 

 

Pennsylvania* Within PM into lane 2,000 vpd N 16” 0.5”± 0.0625”

Texas* Into Lane N N 16” 0.5”

Utah* Into Lane N N 12” 0.625”-0.75”

Virginia* Within PM N N 16” 0.5”

Washington* Within PM N N 16” 0.375”

Wisconsin - - - - -

Wyoming* Into lane N N 12” 0.5”

Notes: 

PM = Pavement Marking 

* Indicates that state/province responded to survey and information from the survey is reflected in this table.  

       Green highlight for states researched in detail in NCHRP 641. 

Washington State DOT found that the installation of centerline rumble strips resulted in a 37% reduction in all crossover collisions, and a 57% reduction in crossover collisions with serious and fatal injuries.

In 2009, Washington State installed an additional 650 miles of CARDs to bring their total mileage up to 2,000 centerline miles (38%) of their two-lane rural state highways.

[10] 

 

Exhibits 3a and 3b show different layouts for centerline rumble strip.

   EXHIBIT 3a – CLRS IN OTHER STATES - MINNESOTA

EXHIBIT 3b – CLRS IN OTHER STATES - MICHIGAN

[11] 

 

Exhibit 4 shows the clear advantage of placing the rumble strip under the striping to improve wet weather visibility at night. This is particularly helpful to older drivers and may significantly extend the life of the pavement marking. Note that the double edge line is for comparison purposes only and is not in compliance with the National Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

EXHIBIT 4 – PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON RUMBLE STRIPS IN MICHIGAN - WET

[12] 

 

Exhibit 5 from PennDOT clearly shows a correlation between the increased application of centerline rumble strips and a decrease in head-on deaths. The left-hand side of the chart is the number of miles of centerline rumble strips and the right-hand side of the chart has the number of fatalities. The numbers reflected are statewide, including all roads (freeways, state and local).

EXHIBIT 5 – CENTERLINE RUMBLE STRIPS IN PA

Note:  Includes all crashes and is not corrected for vehicle miles travelled. 

[13] 

 

NYSDOT Experience

NYSDOT began experimental use of shoulder rumble strips in 1981 and made them a common feature on access-controlled highways starting in 1995. Placement was limited to freeways primarily to minimize discomfort to bicyclists by a system that had not yet been proven on secondary highways. As anticipated, rumble strips produced significant reductions in freeway drift-off-road injuries and fatalities, averaging around 60% in New York State. While other states also showed positive results, New York’s results were better than most.

As of July, 2010, NYSDOT has only 6.1 centerline miles of CARDs (Centerline Audible Roadway Delineation system) installed, which is insignificant statistically when considering the total miles of CARDs installed nationally. Locations of NY CARDs installations:

EXHIBIT 6a – CENTERLINE RUMBLE STRIP PRACTICES IN NEW YORK STATE

Note: US Route 15 in R6 (Hornell) has 5.2 miles

[14] 

 

EXHIBIT 6b – CENTERLINE RUMBLE STRIP PRACTICES IN NEW YORK STATE

Note: NY Route 16 in Region 5 (Buffalo) has 0.8 miles

A before after crash analysis was performed for both sections. The US Route 15 installation was old enough to allow an 8 yr study period (4 years before and after) and the NY Route 16 section received the standard 6 year study period (3 years before and after). Combined, the before period contained 3 fatalities and the after period contained 1 fatality. All of the fatalities were crossover accidents and the single after period fatality involved alcohol.

On the Rte 15 section, a Priority Investigation Evaluation was also performed by Regional Traffic and Safety. After installation there was there was a reduction in crossover accidents, from 7 to 4, and an increase in overall crashes, from 31 to 40 (resulting in only a 0.07 acc/MVM increase in the crash rate). A detailed analysis of the crashes showed that the traffic volume had increased substantially as had the number of animal and inclement weather crashes.

Due to the limited length available in New York State and randomness of cross over crashes, New York’s safety study can not be relied on solely for a statewide application. This report also relies on the expert advice of AASHTO and FHWA; national study safety statistics; and the experiences of other states.

[15] 

 

Selection Criteria

CARDs should be installed on any 1R or more complex projects meeting all of the following criteria:

• Median: There is no raised median, two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) or median barrier. CARDs are appropriate for flush medians.

• Length: Total project quantity is 500 m (1,500’) or more. Because of the cost of mobilizing the equipment to mill in the CARDs, projects that would result in the placement of less than 500 m (1,500’) of CARDs may be exempted. Several locations can be combined into a single project to improve the efficiency and cost of the milling operation.

• Speed: The posted speed is 45 mph or greater. The likelihood of a severe injury or fatality increases dramatically in collisions of 80 km/h (50 mph) or greater.

• Volume: A current AADT of 2,000 vpd or more. The primary benefit of CARDs is to reduce the incidence of head-on and sideswipe collisions. As traffic volumes decrease, the likelihood of such collisions decreases, with or without the use of CARDs.

• Roadway Width: FHWA recommends that the combined with of the lane(s) and shoulder width in each direction should be at least 3.9 m (13’). Since State Highways have a minimum 2’ paved shoulder in uncurbed sections and the maximum legal width of a vehicle is 8.5’, a minimum lane width of 11’ is recommended to avoid having vehicles riding on the shoulder, over the CARDs, or in adjacent lanes.

• Pavement: The pavement should be in good condition to avoid problems milling deteriorated pavement.

Installation of CARDs is encouraged as area-wide stand-alone projects on existing pavements meeting the criteria above.

Design

Tires running over rumble strips produce sound and vibration. To minimize noise and avoid incidental contact from vehicles operating within the travel lane or vehicles adjusting their position within the travel lane, CARDs should be placed under the centerline marking. This requires the width to be reduced from 450 mm (16”) for MIRADs to 300 mm (12”) for CARDs. Additionally, the spacing should be increased from 300 mm (12”) to 600 mm (24”) since CARDs will be placed much closer to the travel lane compared to MIRADs. It is theorized that the closer the rumble strip to the travel lane, the more acute the angle of impact would be during unintentional lane departures (i.e., drifting), allowing for the rumble strips to be spaced further apart and still have enough noise and

[16] 

 

vibration to alert a motorist. To help ensure the effectiveness of the narrower and further spaced out rumble strip design, the CARD depth should remain 13 mm (0.5”) deep parallel grooves. As shown in Exhibit 3, the proposed location and design would be some of the most restrictive in the country.

EXHIBIT 7 – RUMBLE STRIP DESIGN

Note: Cross-section view cut along the highway centerline.

[17] 

 

Statewide Crash Data

Data source and scope:

• New York State – 2007-2009 NYSDMV Summary of Motor Vehicle Accidents.

• Average Accident Rates for State Highways by Facility Type for Year 2007 to 2009 – Published by NYSDOT Office of Modal Safety and Security.

• Highway Traffic Data, Physical Characteristics – New York State’s 2009 Highway Sufficiency Ratings.

• Average Accident Costs/Severity Distribution State Highways 2007 – Published by NYSDOT Office of Modal Safety and Security.

• Highway geometric data was obtained in GIS from the Highway Sufficiency Manual database. This data was sorted by the rumble strip selection criteria and the number of target crashes was determined using the 2006, 2007, and 2008 NYSDMV accident data using a Graphic Information System (GIS).

• For head-on and opposite direction side-swipe crashes on highways suitable for CARDs, there are 1.1875 deaths per fatal crash.

• For head-on and opposite direction side-swipe crashes on highways suitable for CARDs, there are 1.1812 injuries per injury crash.

EXHIBIT 8a – SUMMARY OF NEW YORK STATE NON-INTERSECTION HEAD-ON AND SIDESWIPE CRASHES

Fatal Injury Fatal Injury Fatal InjuryHead On Two Lane Rural 36 173 34 232 27 248Head On Two Lane Urban 15 297 20 284 18 329Head On Multi Lane Rural 2 12 2 16 3 24Head On Multi Lane Urban 8 171 14 174 6 153Head On Other 14 661 15 571 2 400Sideswipe Two Lane Rural 4 120 2 147 2 176Sideswipe Two Lane Urban 6 275 1 216 2 225Sideswipe MultiLane Rural 1 17 0 7 0 8Sideswipe MultiLane Urban 2 175 1 77 1 100Sideswipe Other 2 521 2 392 0 291Totals 90 2422 91 2116 61 1954* Does not include Intersection Crashes

2006 2007 2008

Centerline Crashes on All Highways

[18] 

 

EXHIBIT 8b – SUMMARY OF NEW YORK STATE NON-INTERSECTION HEAD-ON AND SIDESWIPE CRASHES

Case Year Length (Miles) Daily VMTFatal

Crashes FatalitiesFatalities per

100MVMT/year1998 112525 338015 136 157 0.01131999 112661 346551 130 160 0.01122000 112783 352616 120 135 0.00932001 112962 358448 135 151 0.01022002 114024 364542 93 114 0.00752003 113127 369992 100 116 0.00762004 113344 376770 141 163 0.01052005 113495 381364 84 98 0.00622006 113616 387255 112 129 0.00802007 113741 374624 116 140 0.00902008 114471 366352 79 87 0.0057

Head On and Sideswipe Fatalities per 100M VMT1998-2008

[19] 

 

EXHIBIT 8c – SUMMARY OF NEW YORK STATE NON-INTERSECTION HEAD-ON AND SIDESWIPE CRASHES

Case Year Length (Miles) Daily VMTF&I per

100MVMT/year1998 112525 338015 0.36711999 112661 346551 0.37782000 112783 352616 0.38652001 112962 358448 0.29952002 114024 364542 0.25102003 113127 369992 0.27852004 113344 376770 0.27492005 113495 381364 0.28432006 113616 387255 0.24682007 113741 374624 0.23502008 114471 366352 0.2313

Head On and Sideswipe Fatal/Injury Crashes per 100M VMT1998-2008

3541

380842554285449239643655

F&I Crashes

5097538456114426

[20] 

 

EXHIBIT 9 – STATEWIDE HEAD-ON AND SIDE-SWIPE FATAL CRASHES

Note: Does not include Intersection Crashes

[21] 

 

EXHIBIT 10 – HEAD-ON AND SIDE-SWIPE FATAL CRASHES ON STATE HIGHWAYS SUITABLE FOR CARDS

  Note: Does not include Intersection Crashes 

   

[22] 

 

 National Crash Reduction Factors

NCHRP 641 Crash Reduction factors for the targeted crash types:

EXHIBIT 11 –NATIONAL CRASH REDUCTION FACTORS

Safety Benefit /Crash Cost Analysis

Crash costs determined from the FHWA willingness to pay methodology are available at:

https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/osss/highway/accident-costs

Exhibit 12 shows the calculated safety benefits of centerline rumble strips for New York State on the State Highways where the installation of CARDs may be suitable.

Centerline Rumble Strips Fatal Head-on & Sideswipe Injury Head-on & Sideswipe

Urban 64% 64%

Rural 44% 44%

[23] 

 

EXHIBIT 12 – SAFETY BENEFITS OF CENTERLINE RUMBLE STRIPS

Crash Type Fatal InjuryHead‐on/Sideswipe  12 208

*Reduction 64% 64%2008 Accident Costs for Urban Two Lane RoadsFREE ACCESS, URBAN, DIVIDED, ALL LANES $3,351,200 $96,500FREE ACCESS, URBAN, UNDIVIDED, ALL LANES $3,573,300 $94,700PARTIAL ACCESS, URBAN, UNDIVIDED, 2 LANES $3,254,600 $91,800PARTIAL ACCESS, URBAN, DIVIDED, ALL LANES $3,524,700 $91,600

Average $3,425,950 $93,650

Annual Accidents Reduced 7.68 133.12Annual Benefits $26,311,296 $12,466,688

Crash Type Fatal Injury

Head‐on/Sideswipe  24 203*Reduction 44% 44%

2008 Accident Costs for Rural Two Lane RoadsFatal Injury

PARTIAL ACCESS, RURAL, UNDIVIDED, 2 LANES $4,123,300 $94,100FREE ACCESS, RURAL, DIVIDED, 2 LANES $3,256,000 $92,200FREE ACCESS, RURAL, UNDIVIDED, 2 LANES $3,890,600 $91,300

Average $3,756,633 $92,533

Annual Accidents Reduced 10.56 89.32Annual Benefits $39,670,048 $8,265,077

Total $65,981,344 $20,731,765

*http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_641.pdf

2008 NYS CenterLine Crashes‐ Rural  State Highways

2008 NYS CenterLine Crashes ‐Urban  State Highways

[24] 

 

Using the estimated safety benefits and the bid price histories for rumble strip installation, the benefit to cost ratios were calculated. The subcontractor’s primary costs for milling in rumble strips are mobilization, work zone traffic control, and machine operation. The reduced width of CARDs, as compared to MIARDs, should not significantly alter their cost. Based on current costs, CARDs are expected to add approximately $0.30/ft to project costs, where they are deemed appropriate. Where the quantities are low, higher unit costs should be anticipated in order to cover mobilization costs. To install CARDs on 7,040 miles every 10 years would cost $11.2M or $1.1M per year.

Installation of centerline rumble strips on 6% of the total highway miles in the state (7,040 miles of State Highway) would potentially prevent 21 deaths (18 fatal crashes) and 262 injuries (222 injuries crashes) per year. The installations would potentially save over $85M per year and $1.7B in crash costs over 20 years. The resulting benefit to cost ratio is over 75:1.

Summary and Recommendations

NYSDOT conducts extensive literature searches and analysis to determine the safest, most effective safety measures for State highways. Based on a thorough review of numerous studies and the systematic crash analysis in this report, centerline rumble strips are anticipated to:

• Be a particularly effective safety device on undivided high-speed roads where there is no median or room for barriers to separate opposing lanes of traffic.

• Effective in both rural and urban environments.

• Help prevent head-on, sideswipe and opposite direction run-off-the-road collisions.

• Be very cost-effective with B/C ratios of over 75 to 1.

• Be relatively fast to install.

• Be safe for motorcyclists. CARDs were tested for motorcyclist safety by MnDOT as part of K.W. Miller, Effects of Center-Line Rumble Strips on Non-Conventional Vehicles, K.W. Miller, 2008 and found to “add no measurable risk to motorcyclists.”

• Improve visibility of pavement markings, particularly in wet-night conditions.

Projects considered should not be limited by the Project type (whether 3R, 2R, 1R, etc) or the party performing the work (contractor, Vendor in Place Paving (VPP), etc.). CARDs should be considered for new and reconstructed highway projects, 2R/3R projects, and any 1R projects where the travel lanes will receive at least an inch and a half of asphalt. CARDs should not be required for limited- or single-purpose projects such as striping, joint sealing, or ditch maintenance. CARDs should be encouraged to be installed as stand-alone projects. Due to the significant life saving results, CARDs are eligible to receive HSIP federal funding.

[25] 

 

4. REFERENCES

1. NCHRP Project 17-18, Task 19 Alternate Strategies for Safety Improvement Investments, TRB, January 2010.

2. AASHTO Driving Down Lane Departures, Washington, D.C., April 2009.

3. Torbic, D.J. Et Al., Guidance for the Design and Application of Shoulder and Centerline Rumble Strips, NCHRP 641, TRB, 2009.

4. Russell, E.R., Rys, M.J., Centerline Rumble Strips, NCHRP Synthesis 339, TRB, 2005.

5. Miller, K.W., Effects of Center-Line Rumble Strips on Non-Conventional Vehicles, Minnesota DOT, 2008.

6. FHWA, Rumble Strip Website.

7. Outcalt, W., Centerline Rumble Strips, Colorado DOT, August 2001.

8. Bachman, D., “Rumble Strips: Finding a Design for Bicycles and Motor Vehicles,” Transportation Research News 215, TRB, July-August 2001.

9. Washington State DOT Rumble Strip Website [http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Design/Policy/RumbleStrips.htm], Accessed in 2010.

10. FHWA Priority, Market-Ready Technologies and Innovations List Website [http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/crt/lifecycle/rumblestrips.cfm], Accessed in 2010.

11. Nevada DOT Centerline Rumble Strips Website [http://www.nevadadot.com/safety/improvements/rumblestrips.asp], Accessed in 2010.

12. Amparano, G, Morena, D. A., “Senior Mobility Series: Article 4 – Marking the Way to Greater Safety” Public Roads, Vol 70, No. 1., TFHRC, July/August 2006.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[26] 

 

 

APPENDIX A – HIGHWAY DATA

[27] 

 

Table A-1 - Summary of NYS Mileage Meeting the Selection Criteria

 

MILES  % of Total                                                             114481  100%  Total Miles of Highways in NYS 

                       

CARDS                                 

7040.69  6%  Miles of partial and free control of access state highways with ADT of 2,000 or more, and posted speed over 40 mph.  (i.e., Roads that may be suitable for CL rumble strips). 

                       

[28] 

 

Table A-2 - Summary of Mileage Meeting the Selection Criteria for Centerline Rumble Strips

NYSDOT‐owned roads in Rural areas with AADT=2,000+ and Posted Speed Limit>40mph    Rural and Urban Areas with AADT=2,000+ and Posted Speed Limit>40mph 

    All lane & shldr widths    9/10 ft lanes, 5+ ft shldrs  11 ft lanes, 5+ ft shldrs  12+ ft lanes, 5+ ft shldrs    NYSDOT owned 

Reg  County  Full Ctrl of Access 

Partial Ctrl of Access 

No Ctrl of Access 

  Full Ctrl of Access 

Partial Ctrl of Access 

No Ctrl of Access 

Full Ctrl of Access 

Partial Ctrl of Access 

No Ctrl of Access 

Full Ctrl of Access 

Partial Ctrl of Access 

No Ctrl of Access 

  Reg  County  Full Control of Access 

Partial Control of Access 

No Control of Access 

Total   

1  ALBANY  0  0  51.4    0  0  1.38  0  0  7.71  0  0  4.51    1  ALBANY  35  8.63  98.26  141.89   

1  ESSEX  57.12  0  115.28    0  0  1.23  0  0  7.61  57.12  0  30.46    1  ESSEX  57.12  0  117.19  174.31   

1  GREENE  0  2.96  87.86    0  0  0.08  0  0  11.14  0  2.96  22.69    1  GREENE  2.59  6.9  100.22  109.71   

1  RENSSELAER  8.28  0  118.33    0.17  0  1.03  2.99  0  8.76  5.12  0  55.19    1  RENSSELAER  20.64  3.48  158.96  183.08   

1  SARATOGA  4.12  0  67.82    0  0  0  0  0  7.2  4.02  0  8.44    1  SARATOGA  35.42  0.82  150.2  186.44   

1  SCHENECTADY  12.83  0  27.21    0  0  0  0  0  0  9.35  0  9.61    1  SCHENECTADY  23.96  2.33  46.59  72.88   

1  WARREN  25.61  0  47.22    0  0  0.42  0  0  10.02  24.65  0  6.66    1  WARREN  39.26  0  61.81  101.07   

1  WASHINGTON  0.05  0  156.89    0  0  0.41  0  0  7.74  0  0  50.16    1  WASHINGTON  0.05  0  166.39  166.44   

2  FULTON  0  0.01  56.67    0  0  2.29  0  0  3.08  0  0.01  27.74    2  FULTON  0  4.07  72.68  76.75   

2  HAMILTON  0  0  12.85    0  0  0  0  0  7.49  0  0  0    2  HAMILTON  0  0  15  15   

2  HERKIMER  0  5.11  58.9    0  2.08  7.79  0  0  2.28  0  2.06  37.86    2  HERKIMER  12.28  8.09  81.97  102.34   

2  MADISON  0  0  80.82    0  0  14.07  0  0  15.17  0  0  47.56    2  MADISON  0  0.6  98.67  99.27   

2  MONTGOMERY  0  2.97  63.26    0  0  2.98  0  0  8  0  2.97  24.91    2  MONTGOMERY  0.09  10.23  73.83  84.15   

2  ONEIDA  7.78  9.39  172.54    0  0  25.3  0  0  71.31  6.96  8.16  60.74    2  ONEIDA  41.64  22.12  235.06  298.82   

[29] 

 

3  CAYUGA  0.68  0  113.97    0.68  0  13.35  0  0  38.07  0  0  49.14    3  CAYUGA  0.68  0  124.5  125.18   

3  CORTLAND  21.43  0  38.63    0  0  18.1  0  0  10.19  21.43  0  9.47    3  CORTLAND  29.35  0  51.79  81.14   

3  ONONDAGA  12.64  1.71  97.48    0  0  19.78  0  0  10.48  10.77  1.06  38.03    3  ONONDAGA  93.45  5.65  164.36  263.46   

3  OSWEGO  20.81  1.19  116.9    0  0  45.27  0  0  8.6  20.81  1.19  43.66    3  OSWEGO  32.13  1.29  145.28  178.7   

3  SENECA  4.23  0  98.19    0  0  18.8  0  0  29.37  4.23  0  48.31    3  SENECA  4.23  1.03  105.3  110.56   

3  TOMPKINS  0  0  88.89    0  0  16.68  0  0  26.07  0  0  43.97    3  TOMPKINS  4.12  2.7  121.95  128.77   

4  GENESEE  0.97  0  132.86    0  0  11.62  0  0  29.17  0.97  0  89.31    4  GENESEE  0.97  0  148.91  149.88   

4  LIVINGSTON  35.91  0  144.29    0  0  7.87  0  0  53.84  35.64  0  80.19    4  LIVINGSTON  35.91  0  148.02  183.93   

4  MONROE  14.43  0  78.77    0  0  15.93  0  0  27.96  14.43  0  29.83    4  MONROE  78.08  19.29  193.6  290.97   

4  ONTARIO  1.43  0  104.4    0  0  1.78  0  0  58.88  1.26  0  43.39    4  ONTARIO  2.86  2.21  145.91  150.98   

4  ORLEANS  0  0  82.2    0  0  4.97  0  0  25.99  0  0  42.84    4  ORLEANS  0  0  86.91  86.91   

4  WAYNE  0.13  23.22  72.07    0  0  3.85  0  0  23.69  0.13  23.22  30.26    4  WAYNE  0.13  23.7  107.41  131.24   

4  WYOMING  0  0  109.5    0  0  12.2  0  0  65.1  0  0  21.63    4  WYOMING  0  0  111.11  111.11   

5  CATTARAUGUS  40.58  3.07  88.47    0  0  1.85  8.4  0.36  38.86  32  2.71  39.21    5  CATTARAUGUS  54.15  5.21  104.76  164.12   

5  CHAUTAUQUA  25.81  0  105.49    0  0  15.42  7.43  0  34.97  18.38  0  53.38    5  CHAUTAUQUA  46.3  0  148.88  195.18   

5  ERIE  16.48  0.26  94.2    2.33  0  2.47  0.23  0  29.64  13.92  0.26  53.71    5  ERIE  83.43  7.99  244.74  336.16   

5  NIAGARA  0  0  60.27    0  0  2.63  0  0  8.48  0  0  47.97    5  NIAGARA  13.11  3.43  134.98  151.52   

6  ALLEGANY  31.64  0  79.69    0  0  0  0  0  30.29  31.64  0  39.79    6  ALLEGANY  34.41  0.84  86.15  121.4   

6  CHEMUNG  5.55  8.95  22.19    0  0  0  0  0  9.47  5.55  7.54  11.21    6  CHEMUNG  21.11  10.82  46.79  78.72   

[30] 

 

6  SCHUYLER  0.64  0  40.52    0  0  0  0  0  13.13  0.64  0  16.49    6  SCHUYLER  0.64  0  42.18  42.82   

6  STEUBEN  63.82  3.51  116.74    0  0  3.04  0  0  35.18  63.82  3.51  69.21    6  STEUBEN  82.39  8.76  130.48  221.63   

6  YATES  0  0  56.64    0  0  0  0  0  18.26  0  0  32.82    6  YATES  0  0  61.28  61.28   

7  CLINTON  27.33  7.13  133.86    0  0  0  0  0  88.36  27.33  3.06  41.81    7  CLINTON  39.66  8.04  149.78  197.48   

7  FRANKLIN  0  0  127.46    0  0  0.73  0  0  54.32  0  0  55.13    7  FRANKLIN  0  0  136.4  136.4   

7  JEFFERSON  45.74  5.71  131.08    0  0  0  0  0  23.5  45.74  5.71  103.91    7  JEFFERSON  51.81  7.58  203.61  263   

7  LEWIS  0  0  69.63    0  0  0  0  0  6.5  0  0  60.71    7  LEWIS  0  0  72.64  72.64   

7  ST LAWRENCE  5.61  12.77  187.37    0  0  0  5.58  0  47.77  0.03  12.77  137.07    7  ST LAWRENCE  5.77  22.91  206.14  234.82   

8  COLUMBIA  10.38  19.1  122.5    0  0  6.07  0  0  25.22  0  0  51.51    8  COLUMBIA  10.38  19.1  149.72  179.2   

8  DUTCHESS  3.25  13.64  147.27    0  0  26.59  0  0  35.52  3.25  0  34.69    8  DUTCHESS  23.69  27.26  239.25  290.2   

8  ORANGE  18.62  0  58.5    0  0  0.39  2.86  0  12.94  15.38  0  11.84    8  ORANGE  84.34  2.83  227.9  315.07   

8  PUTNAM  0  8.41  29.89    0  0  0  0  0  4.84  0  3.74  8.59    8  PUTNAM  20.37  14.33  65.52  100.22   

8  ULSTER  0  0  97.39    0  0  0  0  0  0.5  0  0  53.44    8  ROCKLAND  9.51  1.3  36.79  47.6   

9  BROOME  66.06  10.38  15.94    0  0  0  0  4.4  6.55  53.03  5.49  3.74    8  ULSTER  12.37  1.45  185.61  199.43   

9  CHENANGO  60.27  14.09  21.53    0  0  0.03  0.78  2.44  7.97  55.62  6.55  12.4    8  WESTCHESTER  69.52  63.14  105.68  238.34   

9  DELAWARE  40.38  7.85  110.87    0.51  0  0  0.96  0  56.32  38.15  7.38  29.58    9  BROOME  131.86  25.95  23.37  181.18   

9  OTSEGO  31.13  0  91.26    0  0  0.76  0  0  15.06  31.13  0  39.17    9  CHENANGO  65.37  18.22  24.62  108.21   

9  SCHOHARIE  9.29  0  65.42    0  0  0.43  0  0  7.82  7.1  0  45.42    9  DELAWARE  42.48  8.76  118.94  170.18   

9  SULLIVAN  22.68  12.65  50.68    0  0  0  0  0  15.13  22.68  12.65  26.51    9  OTSEGO  38.92  1.29  98.21  138.42   

[31] 

 

9  TIOGA  9.3  0  82.61    0  0  0  0  0  30.17  9.3  0  45.2    9  SCHOHARIE  20.12  0  79.66  99.78   

10  SUFFOLK  0  0  0.22     0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0    9  SULLIVAN  36.31  12.65  62.67  111.63   

  Totals  763.01  174.08  4602.89    3.69  2.08  307.59  29.23  7.2  1231.69  691.58  113  2081.07    9  TIOGA  28.55  0.23  107.84  136.62   

                                10  NASSAU  89.03  7.45  33.94  130.42   

  NOTES:  For "Rural" all roads not in a designated Urban/Urbanized area (ie‐Rural functional classes) were selected.  All villages were eliminated from the total with the exception of the Village of Woodbury, Orange County, which encompasses a large non‐urban area. 

  10  SUFFOLK  140.48  5.53  165.68  311.69   

    For lane widths, pavement width was divided by the number of lanes in the inventory files.  Lane widths at 0.5 or less were rounded down and 0.67 or greater were rounded up. 

11  BRONX  30  1.38  0  31.38   

    The mileage under "All lane & shldr widths" exceeds the sum of the other three categories as the roads with less then 5 foot shldr widths are included. 

11  KINGS  12.33  0  0  12.33   

                                11  NEW YORK  6.11  0  0  6.11   

        11  QUEENS  48.3  0  0  48.3   

                      11  RICHMOND  15.15  5.01  0  20.16   

                                  Total  1917.93  414.6  6626.09  8958.62   

  Miles  %                                         

  7040.69  6%  1. Miles of partial and free control of access state highways with ADT of 2,000 or more, and posted speed over 40 mph.  (i.e., Roads that may be suitable for CL rumble strips). 

  309.67  0%  2. Miles of partial and free control of access state highways with ADT of 2,000 or more, and posted speed over 40 mph in rural areas with 5' or wider shoulders and 9 or 10' travel lanes.  (i.e., Roads that may be suitable for CL rumble strips and shoulder rumble strips, but only one type can be used due to narrow lanes). 

  1238.89  1%  3. Miles of partial and free control of access state highways with ADT of 2,000 or more, and posted speed over 40 mph in rural areas with 5' or wider shoulders and 11' travel lanes.  (i.e., Roads that may be suitable for CL rumble strips and shoulder rumble strips if 11' min lane width criteria is used) 

  2194.07  2%  4. Miles of partial and free control of access state highways with ADT of 2,000 or more, and posted speed over 40 mph in rural areas with 5' or wider shoulders and 12' travel lanes.  (i.e., Roads 

[32] 

 

 

 

that may be suitable for CL rumble strips and shoulder rumble strips if 12' min lane width criteria is used)

  5721.1  5%  5. Miles of partial and free control of access state highways with ADT of 200 or more, and posted speed over 40 mph in rural areas with 5' or wider shoulders. (i.e., Roads that may be suitable for shoulder rumble strips). 

  114481.05  100%  6. Total Miles of Highways in NYS 

  2263.72    7. Miles of partial and free control of access urban state highways with ADT of 2,000 or more, and posted speed over 40 mph.  (i.e., Roads that may be suitable for CL rumble strips).