TY - JOUR
T1 - Safety evaluation of design alternatives to separate freeway-opposing traffic
AU - Albuquerque, F. D.B.
AU - Awadalla, D. M.
N1 - Funding Information:
United Arab Emirates University for funding this research effort [grant number 31R202]. The authors would like to thank the Abu Dhabi Department of Transport (DOT) for providing traffic-related information.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - Objectives: Different design alternatives used to separate freeway-opposing traffic may produce varying safety levels. State-of-the-art design guidelines have provided guidance in respect to a number of median features such as width, slope, and barrier installation. Guidance provided has been based on benefit-cost procedures; however, because project costs may significantly vary across different countries/jurisdictions, findings from benefit-cost procedures may be meaningless on a broader geographical scope. The objective of this study is to quantify the safety level of a number of design alternatives commonly used to separate opposing freeway traffic based solely on annualized crash costs. Methods: The safety performance of 14 design alternatives were assessed using the Roadside Safety Analysis Program (RSAPv3). Results: A test-level 3, low-tension cable barrier installed in the middle of a wide, hazard-free median was found to be the safest design alternative. Road sections containing: i) cable barriers were found to be safer than those containing w-beam guardrails, ii) low-tension cable barriers installed in the middle of the median were found to be safer than those containing high-tension cable barriers installed on one side of the median, regardless of median width, iii) wide, hazard-free medians were found to be safer than those containing WB guardrails, and iv) concrete barrier installations were found to be only safer than those containing unshielded medians, except when the median was 20 meters wide and hazard-free. Conclusions: This paper not only provides evidence that some of the design alternatives often installed in real-world scenarios are not the safest, but it also discusses how some of these alternatives may not be the most cost-effective either. These findings make this study relevant and timely, as designers and policy/decision makers should always seek to maximize safety while optimizing the allocation of limited public funds.
AB - Objectives: Different design alternatives used to separate freeway-opposing traffic may produce varying safety levels. State-of-the-art design guidelines have provided guidance in respect to a number of median features such as width, slope, and barrier installation. Guidance provided has been based on benefit-cost procedures; however, because project costs may significantly vary across different countries/jurisdictions, findings from benefit-cost procedures may be meaningless on a broader geographical scope. The objective of this study is to quantify the safety level of a number of design alternatives commonly used to separate opposing freeway traffic based solely on annualized crash costs. Methods: The safety performance of 14 design alternatives were assessed using the Roadside Safety Analysis Program (RSAPv3). Results: A test-level 3, low-tension cable barrier installed in the middle of a wide, hazard-free median was found to be the safest design alternative. Road sections containing: i) cable barriers were found to be safer than those containing w-beam guardrails, ii) low-tension cable barriers installed in the middle of the median were found to be safer than those containing high-tension cable barriers installed on one side of the median, regardless of median width, iii) wide, hazard-free medians were found to be safer than those containing WB guardrails, and iv) concrete barrier installations were found to be only safer than those containing unshielded medians, except when the median was 20 meters wide and hazard-free. Conclusions: This paper not only provides evidence that some of the design alternatives often installed in real-world scenarios are not the safest, but it also discusses how some of these alternatives may not be the most cost-effective either. These findings make this study relevant and timely, as designers and policy/decision makers should always seek to maximize safety while optimizing the allocation of limited public funds.
KW - Median safety
KW - RSAPv3 simulation
KW - crash costs
KW - freeways
KW - opposing traffic
KW - roadside design
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85113383651&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85113383651&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/15389588.2021.1965591
DO - 10.1080/15389588.2021.1965591
M3 - Article
C2 - 34432602
AN - SCOPUS:85113383651
SN - 1538-9588
VL - 22
SP - 576
EP - 581
JO - Traffic Injury Prevention
JF - Traffic Injury Prevention
IS - 7
ER -