Lighting Justification Report
SR 847 / NW 47th Avenue
Project Development & Environment Study
From SR 860/NW 183rd Street to Premier Parkway
County: Miami-Dade and Broward
Efficient Transportation Decision Making Number: 13768
Financial Management Number: 430637-1-22-01
Federal Aid Project: 6107-002 U
November 2013
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
EXISTING LIGHTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................ 1
AASHTO WARRANTS .................................................................................................... 1
ANALYSIS OF THE HIGHWAY LIGHTING JUSTIFICATION ................................. 2
A. Number of Poles, Luminaires, and Wattage ....................................................... 2
B. Night Accident Rate Unlighted .......................................................................... 3
C. Average Crash Cost ............................................................................................ 3
D. Construction Cost per Pole ................................................................................. 3
E. Electrical Energy Cost ........................................................................................ 4
F. Interest Rate ........................................................................................................ 4
G. Accident (Crash) Reduction Factor ..................................................................... 4
H. Annual Maintenance Cost Per Luminaire ........................................................... 4
CALCULATION OF BENEFIT-COST RATIO ............................................................... 5
CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................. 5
APPENDICES
FDOT MUTS Chapter 15 Highway Lighting Justification Procedure..............Appendix A
FDOT Crash Data……………………………………………………..............Appendix B
State Safety Office Bulletin 10-01.................................................................... Appendix C
Cost Estimate per Light Pole…………………………………………..............Appendix D
Photometric Analysis…………….................................................................... Appendix E
i
Lighting Justification Report
SR 847 (NW 47th Avenue) – NW 183rd Street to Premier Parkway
FPID No. 430637-1-22-01
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to outline the warrants and justification of Highway Lighting for
State Road 847 (SR 847) / NW 47th Avenue from NW 183rd Street (MP 0.00) to Premier
Parkway, located in northern Miami-Dade and southern Broward Counties. The project length is
approximately 2.3 miles. The lighting justification is for the proposed future widening of SR
847 from two-lane undivided to four-lane divided urban minor arterial with median width
varying from 16.5 ft to 26 ft.
The Highway Lighting warranting conditions will be those set forth by the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and shall be used for the purpose of
establishing a basis on which lighting may be justified. These warrants will be referenced from
AASHTO's "Roadway Lighting Design Guide", and specifically the section on highways. Upon
establishing such warranting conditions, justification of the highway lighting will be documented
in accordance with the FDOT's Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies (MUTS) Chapter 15,
Highway Lighting Justification Procedure. Proposed lighting will satisfy conventional roadway
lighting criteria set forth in Table 7.3.1, FDOT Plans Preparation Manual (PPM) Volume 1.
EXISTING LIGHTING CONDITIONS
There are currently no existing street lights consistently along the SR 847 project segment.
Lighting is present at the signalized intersections and along the frontage road (NW 196 Terrace
to NW 199 Street), while some light poles are located along the west side from NW 185 Street to
NW 191 Street. At the intersection of NW 183rd Street there are two standard aluminum light
poles with cobra light fixtures mounted on bracket arms on the NE, NW and SW corners. At
191st Street intersection, there is a joint use light pole (light fixture attached to FPL wood pole)
on the northbound approach and one on the eastbound approach. The 195th Street intersection
has one stand-alone light pole on the south leg and one on the north leg. The intersection of
199th Street has one light pole each on the west and east legs.
The proposed four-lane widening of the mainline SR 847 for the build alternative will include
widening of these intersections. Since the existing condition of SR 847 has no consistent street
lights and low frequency of night time crashes, the proposed roadway design was analyzed to
determine if SR 847 will meet the Lighting Design Justification as identified in the FDOT
MUTS Chapter 15 (Appendix A).
AASHTO WARRANTS
The warrants for Highway Lighting will be used to provide minimum conditions under which
lighting may be justified. The AASHTO warrants are the primary set of guidelines to be met.
FDOT follows the warrants for roadway lighting established by the AASHTO guidelines. The
following section addresses the MUTS Chapter 15 Highway Lighting Justification procedures.
Street lighting may be considered for those locations where the respective governmental agencies
concur that lighting will contribute substantially to the efficiency and comfort of vehicular or
pedestrian traffic. Lighting may be provided for all major arterials in urbanized areas and for
1
locations or sections of streets and highways where the ratio of night to day accident rates is
higher than the statewide average for similar locations, and a study indicates that lighting may be
expected to significantly reduce the night accident rate. In these cases, the determinations to
install lighting have been made on the basis of experience and accident data under certain
existing conditions. These conditions include the average daily traffic for the roadway for
existing and build out and the accidents rate. The supporting data for this corridor's Average
Daily Traffic (ADT) is as follows:
•
•
ADT (current year 2012) = 18,918
Night time ADT (existing 2012) = 4,248
The FDOT MUTS roadway lighting justification procedure is used to determine if the project is
justified based on its benefit-cost ratio. If the benefit-cost ratio is equal to 1.0 or more, then
lighting is justified for the high crash locations as identified by the State Safety office. The
following equation is used to calculate the benefit-cost (B-C) ratio:
Benefit-cost ratio =
ADT
%ADTn
NRU
CRF
ACC
AIC
TMC
AEC
ADT x %ADTn x 365 days x NRU x CRF x ACC
(AIC + TMC + AEC) x 1,000,000
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Average Daily Traffic
Percent of ADT at night
Night crash rate unlighted
Crash reduction factor
Average crash cost
Annualized installation cost
Total annual maintenance cost
Annual energy cost
ANALYSIS OF THE HIGHWAY LIGHTING JUSTIFICATION
The FDOT MUTS Chapter 15 Highway Lighting Justification Procedure is developed to analyze
the B-C ratio of installing the lighting system. The benefits to the public, measured in terms of
accident reductions and reductions in economic loss, are compared to the costs for installation,
maintenance, and operation of the system. In general, lighting systems are considered to be
justified if the benefit cost ratio is 1.0 or greater for high accident locations. At other locations
this ratio should be 2.0 or greater.
In applying this benefit-cost analysis, several preliminary measures were taken. Among these
were an estimate of the number of lighting poles and luminaires necessary in the calculations for
the NRU, and calculations for the Average Crash Cost (ACC). The preliminary items mentioned
above are used as inputs to the Highway Lighting Justification Procedure, of which these inputs,
as well as the remaining ones, are outlined in the following paragraphs.
A. NUMBER OF POLES, LUMINAIRES, AND WATTAGE
There are currently no existing street lights along the mainline segments of SR 847 which
include the existing Snake Creek Canal Bridge. The segment from NW 183rd Street to
2
NW 207th Drive traverses through a heavily urbanized corridor and from NW 207th Street
to Premier Parkway, it is mostly rural corridor. As mentioned, there are sporadic existing
street lights at the signalized intersections.
A lighting analysis considered the proposed four-lane widening of SR 847 for spacing,
type of luminaires and wattage. The existing ADT was used for the build benefit-cost
ratio analysis.
B. NIGHT ACCIDENT RATE UNLIGHTED
The calculation of the Night Rate Unlighted (NRU) involved utilization of FDOT Crash
Analysis Report (CAR) accident data for the period of 2007 to 2011 which is provided in
Appendix B of this report. Accident data pertaining to unlighted conditions were
reviewed in the CAR.
Number of night crashes, along with the ADT, the percent of ADT at night (% ADTn),
and the project length were then used to compute the NRU. The % ADTn was calculated
from available traffic data (4 years). The resultant average for % ADTn is:
% ADTn = 22.37%
The limits of actual accident data for the analysis were taken from the FDOT CAR for the
2007-2011 five year period for the SR 847 project segment. The project segment from
NW 183rd Street to Premier Parkway has an approximate total length of 2.3 miles which
was used for the basis of calculating the NRU. The NRU was calculated as follows:
NRU =
=
(Night Accidents)(1 x 106)
(ADTexist)(%ADTn) (365) (project length)
(19 x 106) / (18,918 x 22.37% x 365 x 2.3) = 5.34
C. AVERAGE CRASH COST
ACC = average crash cost
The ACC for a 4-lane divided urban roadway obtained from FDOT’s State Safety Office Bulletin
10-01 dated August 5, 2010 is $83,359 (Appendix C).
D. CONSTRUCTION COST PER POLE
The construction cost per pole is estimated to be $13,318 based on FDOT average unit
prices. A breakdown of this cost is provided in Appendix D.
3
The number of poles per mile = 5280 ft/mile x 1 pole/242 ft* x 2 sides = 44
*242 ft spacing per lighting analysis (Appendix E), meeting FDOT lighting criteria
Annualized Installation Cost (AIC) is $13,318 x Capital Recovery Factor x #poles/mile
Interest rate = 4%; Service life = 15 years
Capital Recovery Factor = 0.04 x (1.04)^15
1.04^15 -1
= 0.0899
AIC (urban) = $13,318 x 0.0899 x 44 poles (@242 ft spacing) = $52,681
E. ELECTRICAL ENERGY COST
The electrical cost is based on the Average Electrical Cost (AEC) in Florida which is
estimated at 0.08 $/KHW.
AEC = No. of Poles/mile x luminaire/pole x watts/luminaire x kw/1000w x cents/kwh x
11 hours/day x$/100 cent x 365 day/year
AEC = 44 poles/mile x 1 luminaire/pole x 400 watts/luminaire x kw/1000w x 8
cent /KWH x $/100 cent x 11 hour/day x 365 day/year = $5,653
F. INTEREST RATE
The interest rate used for the justification is 4%. This is the interest rate used in
generating a capital recovery factor (CRF). The service life used is 15 years to determine
the CRF.
G. ACCIDENT (CRASH) REDUCTION FACTOR
The Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) for SR 847 based on Figure 15-1 per FDOT MUTS,
the rural and urban mainline CRF are the following:
Mainline CRF (urban 5%) = 0.20
(Figure 15-1 CRFs, FDOT MUTS Chapter 15)
H. ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COST PER LUMINAIRE
The annual maintenance cost per standard lighting luminaire is based on the typical value
of $240 per luminaire pole. This information was then used as inputs to the Highway
Lighting Justification Program and the results showed the following total annual
maintenance costs (TMC).
4
TMC = No. of poles/mile x Luminaries/pole x annual maintenance cost
TMC = 44 x 1 x $240
TMC (urban 5%) = $10,560
CALCULATION OF BENEFIT- COST RATIO
Using the FDOT MUTS benefit-cost equations, the following benefit-cost ratio is calculated:
Benefit-cost ratio = ADT x %ADTn x 365 days x NRU x CRF x ACC
(AIC + TMC + AEC) x 1,000,000
ADT
%ADTn
NRU
CRF
ACC
AIC
TMC
AEC
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Average Daily Traffic (existing): 18,918
Percent of ADT at night: 22.37%
Night crash rate unlighted: 5.34
Crash reduction factor: 0.20
Average crash cost: $83,359
Annualized installation cost: $52,681
Total annual maintenance cost: $10,560
Annual energy cost: $5,653
SR 847 from NW 183rd Street to Premier Parkway (urban 5% commercial segment)
Mainline urban B-C = 18,918 x 0.2237 x 365 days x 5.34 x 0.20 x $83,359
(52,681 + 10,560 + 5,653) x 1,000,000
= 2.0
CONCLUSIONS
Continuous roadway lighting is generally justified when the B-C ratio is 2.0 or greater.
Therefore, the calculated mainline urban B-C ratio of 2.0 indicates that lighting is justified along
the limits of the proposed four-lane project. Additionally, continuous roadway lighting
throughout the project limits would contribute to the safety of bicycle traffic travelling in the
bike lanes along with pedestrian traffic along the sidewalks.
The proposed lighting system would consist of 400+W luminaires mounted on conventional
aluminum light poles at 40 ft mounting height with a 12 ft bracket arm. The number of poles is
based on a pole-to-pole spacing estimate of 242 ft for the project segment. A spacing of 274 ft
can be provided where the proposed median width is reduced to 16.5 ft. The light poles would be
located on both side of the roadway in a staggered pattern. Alternative designs/layouts would
require that the cost be recalculated and re-used in the calculation of the B-C ratio.
5
Appendix A
FDOT MUTS Chapter 15 Highway Lighting
Justification Procedure
Topic No. 750-020-007
Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies
January 2000
Chapter 15
HIGHWAY LIGHTING JUSTIFICATION PROCEDURE
Note: At the time of publication, the Department had formed a task team to reanalyze this procedure. Changes to this chapter will be forthcoming after
recommendations from the task team are completed. These changes will be
distributed as a revision to the manual and sent to all registered holders.
15.1
PURPOSE
(1)
The Department, in cooperation with the University of Florida Transportation
Research Center, has developed a procedure for analyzing and justifying
roadway lighting systems. This procedure is based on the benefit-cost ratio for a
lighting project. This chapter includes a summary of the procedure, an example
problem, and documentation. The procedure explained herein is a modified and
improved practical version of the original procedure developed by the University
of Florida explained in Alternatives for Reducing Energy Consumption in
Highway Lighting (Transportation Research Center Technical Report No.
D84-1, March 1977).
(2)
The procedure allows lighting projects to be ranked according to priority for
construction. Those with a higher benefit-cost ratio have more value in benefits
to the public than those with a lower ratio. The procedure compares benefits to
the public from crash reduction to the government’s cost for installation,
maintenance, and operation. Analysis of existing lighting systems to determine if
they should be retained is also discussed.
15.2
(1)
STEP 1: AASHTO WARRANTS
The Department currently follows the warrants for roadway lighting established
by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO). The warrants outline specific conditions for continuous freeway
lighting, the complete partial lighting of interchanges on unlighted freeways, and
lighting of other streets and highways. The warrants are based on Average Daily
Traffic (ADT), the ratio of night to day crashes, local government participation in
the cost, and other factors. We also use NCHRP Report 152, Warrants for
Highway Lighting as a supplement to AASHTO on arterials.
Highway Lighting Justification Procedure
15-1
Topic No. 750-020-007
Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies
January 2000
(2)
It should be noted that the conditions described in the AASHTO warrant
guidelines are roadway conditions under which lighting may be considered
warranted and do not necessarily describe the sites where lighting is specifically
justified. Designers should first address AASHTO warrants and Rule 14-64,
F.A.C., Illumination of the State Highway System. If these conditions are met,
then a benefit-cost analysis should be made.
15.3
STEP 2: BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS
(1)
The purpose of this step in the roadway lighting justification procedure is to
determine if the project is justified based on its benefit-cost ratio. If the benefit-cost ratio
is equal to 1.0 or more, then lighting is justified for high crash locations as identified by
the State Safety office. At other locations the benefit-cost ratio should be 2.0 or greater.
However, projects should be ranked according to their value in benefit to the public.
Those with a higher ratio offer more value than those with a lower ratio. The procedure
can be used to analyze either an existing or proposed lighting system. There are two
primary differences between the two analyses.
(2)
First, for an existing lighting system, the night unlighted crash rate is assumed to
be 1.5 times the night lighted rate. This insures an adequate safety factor in the
analytical process and assumptions. But for a proposed system, the night unlighted
crash rate is based on actual crash data collected at the site. In cases when reliable
crash data are not available, a minimum unlighted crash rate of 3.0 crashes per million
vehicle miles has been determined to be a reasonable “default” value for conditions in
Florida.
(3)
The second difference between the analyses is that if an existing lighting system
is being evaluated to determine if it should continue to operate, the cost of the
installation is not considered because it is a sunk cost. This recognizes that the initial
investment in lighting hardware has already been made.
(4)
It must be stressed that while defaults are suggested in this report, they do not
appear to be the best value to describe local cost scale nor can they be used without
yearly cost adjustment. It is the user’s responsibility to justify the value to adopt in
analysis.
(5)
The following equations are used to calculate the benefit-cost ratio.
15.3.1
Analysis of New Roadway Lighting Systems
Benefit-Cost Ratio
for Lighting
Installation
15-2
=
ADT x %ADTn x 365 x NRU x CRF x ACC
(AIC + TMC + AEC) x 1,000,000
Highway Lighting Justification Procedure
Topic No. 750-020-007
Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies
15.3.2
January 2000
Analysis of Existing Roadway Lighting Systems
Benefit-Cost Ratio
for Lighting
Retention
=
ADT x %ADTn x 365 x NRU x CRF x ACC
(TMC + AEC) x 1,000,000
Where:
ADT
%ADTn
NRU
CRF
ACC
AIC
TMC
AEC
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Average Daily Traffic (Existing or Projected)
Percent of ADT at night
Night crash rate unlighted
Crash reduction factor
Average crash cost (U.S. dollars per crash)
Annualized installation cost
Total annual maintenance cost
Annual energy cost
15.3.3
Costs
Annualized installation cost, total annual maintenance cost, and annual energy cost are
expressed on a U.S. dollar per mile basis for mainline sections and as a total U.S. dollar
value for interchanges.
15.3.4
Night Crash Rate Unlighted (NRU)
(1)
NRU is expressed as crashes per million vehicle miles for mainline sections or
crashes per million entering vehicles for interchanges.
(2)
The annual lighting cost is the sum of electrical costs, maintenance costs, and
installation costs (proposed systems only). The NRU is obtained by searching
crash records provided by local or state agencies. The percent of ADT at night
(% ADTn) can be determined by examining traffic data.
(3)
The following data from the FHWA's Technical Advisory T7570.1 (January 30,
1988), may be used for computation of the average crash cost at any particular
location.
•
•
•
(4)
$1.7 million/fatality
$14,000/injury
$3,000/property damage
Crash reduction factors for various geometric configurations are given in Figure
15-1. The crash reduction factor is a numerical value assigned to certain types of
facilities and locations. It is based on an estimate of the crash reduction potential
due to the installation of lighting.
Highway Lighting Justification Procedure
15-3
Topic No. 750-020-007
Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies
January 2000
Figure 15-1. Crash Reduction Factors (CRF)
Site Description
CRF
Urban Freeway Interchange
0.80
Urban Freeway Mainline
0.20
Rural Freeway Interchange
0.80
Rural Freeway Mainline
0.20
Non-Controlled Access Roadways
(5)
Rural Intersection
0.20
Rural Mainline
0.10
Urban Intersection
0.20
Urban Mainline
(Commercial)
0.40
Urban Mainline
(25% Commercial)
0.30
Urban Mainline
(5% Commercial)
0.20
Calculation of the benefit-cost ratio can be performed manually or by using a
computer based program. The program is much faster and provides a printed
one-page documentation of the analysis. The process can be better understood
by following the manual calculation in the example problem below.
15.3.5
Example of the Benefit-Cost Ratio (Manual Calculation)
•
•
•
•
High crash location
New lighting system
Mainline urban freeway
Night crash rate unlighted: 2.0 crashes per million vehicle miles
•
•
•
•
•
•
ADT: 41,800 vehicles/day
Percentage ADT at night: 35 percent
Average crash cost: $28,850
Energy costs: $.04/KWH
Conventional as opposed to high mast lighting (cost per pole: $3,000)
Crash reduction factor: .20 (as determined by Figure 15-1)
15-4
Highway Lighting Justification Procedure
Topic No. 750-020-007
Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies
January 2000
Historical Values Typical in Similar Locations
•
•
•
•
•
•
Poles on both sides of road
Spacing between poles: 300 feet
Luminary wattage: 400 W
One luminary per pole
Interest rate: 10 percent
Annual maintenance cost per luminary: $80
Objective:
Find the benefit-cost ratio to determine if the proposed lighting system is
justified.
Procedure:
Calculate the benefit-cost ratio. If the benefit-cost ratio is equal to or
greater than 1.0, the lighting system is considered to be justified for a high
crash location.
Calculations:
Capital Recover =
(CRF, IR=10%,15 yr)
=
No. of Poles
Miles or Inter.
=
=
=
AIC
=
=
=
TMC =
=
=
AEC =
x
=
=
(IR/100 ) x (1 + (IR/100 )
( 1 + (IR/100)15 - 1
0.1315
5,280 ft x
mile
5,280 ft x
mile
35
15
1 pole
x
spacing (ft)
1 pole
x
300 ft
No. sides lighted
2 sides
Initial Cost/Pole x CRF x No. of Poles
Mile or Inter.
3,000 x 0.1315 x 35
13,885
No.of Poles x
miles or Inter.
35 x 1 x $80
2,816
Luminaries
Pole
x
Annual Maintenance Cost
Luminary
No. of Poles x Luminaries x
Watts x KW
Mile or Inter.
Pole
Luminaire
1000 W
Cents
x 11 Hours
x
$
x 365 Days
KWH
Day
100 Cents
Year
35 x 1 x 400 x 1/1000 x 4 x 11 x 1/100 x 365
2,261
Highway Lighting Justification Procedure
15-5
Topic No. 750-020-007
Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies
January 2000
B-C Ratio
=
ADT x %ADTn x 365 x NRU x CRF x ACC
(AIC + TMC + AEC) x 1,000,000
=
41,800 x 0.35 x 365 x 2.0 x 0.20 x $28,850
(13,886 + 2,816 +2,261) x 1,000,000
3.25
=
The Benefit-Cost ratio is equal to or greater than 1.0, therefore lighting is justified.
However, any project with a higher ratio should be given a higher priority for
construction.
Note:
•
A service life of 15 years is used in the capital recovery factor.
•
Initial Cost/Pole should be based on historical data for similar projects. It should
be calculated by dividing the total lighting project cost, including engineering, by
the number of poles.
•
Annual energy cost is based on an average of 11 hours of darkness per day in
Florida.
15.4
DETERMINING OPERATIONAL STATUS OF EXISTING
LIGHTING: FREEWAYS
(1)
Existing highway lighting systems are subject to various causes of electrical or
mechanical malfunction. Pole knockdowns, lightning strikes, damaged-circuits,
blown fuses, burned-out bulbs, and other causes result in an operational status
that is almost always less than 100 percent.
(2)
This guideline sets forth a procedure that can assist the engineer in determining
when a certain section of existing lighting is operating below an acceptable level.
The procedure calculates an “operational ratio” of the actual lighting operation
level to the base lighting operation level. An acceptable range of operational ratio
is between 0.90 and 1.00 for interchanges and for the total lighting system.
However, a range between 0.75 and 1.00 is acceptable for mainline systems.
(3)
This technique should only be used as a guideline and should not form the basis
in all cases for determining when corrective repair work is scheduled for a
highway lighting system. The procedure does, however, recognize that costeffective management of lighting system maintenance involves a value
judgement relating to the seriousness of various types, patterns, locations, and
the number of failed fixtures.
15-6
Highway Lighting Justification Procedure
Topic No. 750-020-007
Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies
January 2000
(4)
Figures 15-3 and 15-4 include a graphical presentation of the procedure.
Unacceptable levels of operation are defined in Figure 15-2.
(5)
It has been estimated that approximately 0.6 hour of data collection team time is
needed for each mile of the study site. Approximately one-fourth of the inspection
time should be spent during daylight hours during which time the number of
installations and knockdowns should be counted. The remaining three-fourths of
the inspection time should be spent during nighttime hours counting burned out
luminaires and tabulating data. Examples of completed tables and calculation
techniques are provided in Figures 15-5, 15-6, and 15-7.
15.5 FORMS ACCESS
Reproducible copies of the Guidelines for Determining the Operational Status of
Existing Lighting Systems on Freeway Facilities (Form Nos. 750-020-15, 750-02016, and 750-020-17) are in the Appendix. These forms are also available in the
Department's Forms Library.
Highway Lighting Justification Procedure
15-7
Topic No. 750-020-007
Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies
January 2000
Figure 15-2. Guidelines for Assessing Operational Level of Highway Lighting
TYPE AREA
Gore Area
Terminal Area
Ramp Area
Mainline
Section
Crossroad
Section
High Mast
Interchange
High Mast
Mainline
DESCRIPTION
The area that begins at the
ramp taper and ends at the
beginning of the physical
gore.
The area (or groups of areas)
within a 250 foot radius
measured from the center of
the ramp pavement where it
joins the edge of a
crossroad.
Any section of ramp roadway
not considered in a gore or
terminal area.
OPERATIONAL
POINTS FOR
EACH
AREA/SECTION
30
20
When high lighting towers are
involved, none of the above
sub-areas shall be identified
within the interchange. The
interchange is defined as the
limits of the interchange high
mast lighting.
Mainline high mast lighting
shall only apply when towers
exist for at least one mile
continuously between the end
of ramp tapers at successive
interchanges.
Two inoperative fixtures
within the gore area.
Twenty-five percent of the
fixtures inoperative within
the terminal area.
15
Three consecutive
fixtures or 50 percent of
the total fixtures
inoperative along the
ramp section.
10
If a mainline section has
one or more groups with
three or more
consecutive luminaires
inoperative, the sum of
the numbers in the
groups is multiplied by
two and added to the
remaining number of
inoperative luminaires.*
5
Three consecutive
fixtures inoperative along
the one side of the
crossroad or two
consecutive fixtures
inoperative along one
side of the crossroad
opposite two consecutive
inoperative fixtures.
Any section of one-way
mainline roadway between
gore areas.
The two-way traffic section
between terminal areas or
from terminal areas to the
ends of the lighting
maintenance.
MINIMUM
UNACCEPTABLE
OPERATING
CONDITION
30
10
Twenty-five percent of the
fixtures inoperative or two
adjacent towers with all
fixtures inoperative.
Twenty-five percent of the
fixtures inoperative or two
adjacent towers with all
fixtures inoperative.
*If the sum is greater than 25 percent of the total number of luminaires, then the section is
unacceptable.
15-8
Highway Lighting Justification Procedure
Topic No. 750-020-007
Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies
January 2000
Figure 15-3. Example Application of Procedure
Highway Lighting Justification Procedure
15-9
Topic No. 750-020-007
Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies
January 2000
Figure 15-4. Graphical Representation
“Terminal Area”
Area within 250 feet of ramp terminal.
Each ramp has only one terminal
area, regardless of channelization.
There are six fixtures in one terminal
area shown at right.
RAMP
250
'
'
250
“Ramp Limits”
GORE AREA
From physical gore to 250 feet
from terminal.
15-10
“Gore Area”
The area that begins at the ramp taper
and ends at the beginning of the
physical gore.
Highway Lighting Justification Procedure
Topic No. 750-020-007
Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies
January 2000
Figure 15-5
Highway Lighting Justification Procedure
15-11
Topic No. 750-020-007
Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies
January 2000
Figure 15-6
15-12
Highway Lighting Justification Procedure
Topic No. 750-020-007
Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies
January 2000
Figure 15-7
Highway Lighting Justification Procedure
15-13
January 2000
15-14
Topic No. 750-020-007
Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies
Highway Lighting Justification Procedure
Appendix B
FDOT Crash Data
zĞĂƌ
EƵŵďĞƌŽĨEŝŐŚƚĐƌĂƐŚĞƐ
ϮϬϬϳ
Ϯϭ
ϮϬϬϴ
Ϯϲ
ϮϬϬϵ
ϭϲ
ϮϬϭϬ
Ϯϲ
ϮϬϭϭ
ϭϵ
ǀĞƌĂŐĞƐ
Ϯϭ͘ϲ
dŽƚĂůŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨĐƌĂƐŚĞƐ
ϲϮ
ϲϰ
ϱϭ
ϳϬ
ϲϬ
ϲϭ͘ϰ
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
CRASH SUMMARY
SECTION:
87012000
INTERSECTING ROADWAY:
STATE ROUTE:
SR 860-Premier Pkwy
STUDY PERIOD:
FROM
DATE
1/ 07
M.P.
0
TO
TYPE
FATAL
TO
12/ 07
INJURY
847
2.144 ENGINEER: Bao Ying
COUNTY:
PROP
DAM
DAY / NT
WET / DRY
Miami Dade
Crash Number
No.
Mile Post
DAY
TIME
CONTRIBUTING CAUSE
727735640
1
0
802292740
2
0
11/6/2007
Tue
1100
Angle
0
1
0
Day
Dry
Unknown
12/30/2007
Sun
800
Left-Turn
0
1
0
Nite
Dry
Unknown
704074610
3
0.001
6/12/2007
Tue
745901400
4
0.028
2/26/2007
Mon
1300
Rear-End
0
1
0
Day
Dry
Unknown
2300
Coll. W/ Pedestrian
0
0
1
Nite
Wet
Unknown
745846830
5
0.028
9/25/2007
Tue
743146050
6
0.038
7/16/2007
Mon
800
Left-Turn
0
1
0
Day
Wet
Unknown
1700
Rear-End
0
1
0
Day
Dry
All Other
708457300
7
0.057
3/28/2007
Wed
1300
Angle
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Unknown
909482700
8
0.152
11/13/2007
Tue
1500
Rear-End
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
745504910
9
0.181
1/16/2007
Tue
800
Rear-End
0
1
0
Day
Dry
Unknown
769415320
10
0.181
2/7/2007
Wed
1900
Rear-End
0
1
0
Nite
Dry
Careless Driving
745600260
11
0.181
6/11/2007
Mon
1700
All other
0
3
0
Day
Dry
Unknown
745846090
12
0.404
7/1/2007
Sun
1900
Rear-End
0
1
0
Day
Wet
Unknown
802292820
13
0.496
12/31/2007
Mon
2200Coll w/ MV on Other Roadway 0
2
0
Nite
Dry
Improper Turn
744823390
14
0.499
4/18/2007
Wed
500
Angle
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Unknown
744833350
15
0.499
5/5/2007
Sat
1500
Angle
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Unknown
745622210
16
0.499
8/5/2007
Sun
2300
All other
0
0
1
Unk
Other
Unknown
745600800
17
0.499
11/24/2007
Sat
1700
Angle
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
All Other
742891720
18
0.5
3/8/2007
Thu
1500
All other
0
2
0
Day
Dry
Unknown
744823190
19
0.624
4/1/2007
Sun
1800
Overturned
0
1
0
Day
Dry
All Other
727732990
20
0.73
9/17/2007
Mon
900
Rear-End
0
1
0
Day
Dry
Unknown
704059680
21
0.749
4/11/2007
Wed
2100
Left-Turn
0
2
0
Nite
Dry
Unknown
756417920
22
0.749
8/10/2007
Fri
1300
Left-Turn
0
2
0
Day
Dry
Unknown
802292700
23
0.797
12/29/2007
Sat
1100
Rear-End
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Unknown
754726740
24
0.816
5/4/2007
Fri
2000
All other
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Unknown
745845520
25
0.816
5/25/2007
Fri
1700
Rear-End
0
1
0
Day
Dry
Unknown
745917560
26
0.988
8/28/2007
Tue
700
Left-Turn
0
1
0
Day
Dry
Unknown
754974160
27
0.992
3/6/2007
Tue
1800
Left-Turn
0
1
0
Nite
Dry
Unknown
745607890
28
0.992
3/9/2007
Fri
1600
All other
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Unknown
727715000
29
0.992
5/18/2007
Fri
600
Left-Turn
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Unknown
909483710
30
0.992
9/25/2007
Tue
600
Coll. W/ Pedestrian
0
1
0
Nite
Slippery
Unknown
802292620
31
0.992
12/27/2007
Thu
1800
Rear-End
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
906165410
32
0.992
12/27/2007
Thu
1800
Rear-End
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
745504060
33
0.993
2/1/2007
Thu
800
Rear-End
0
2
0
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
772006280
34
1
8/7/2007
Tue
1600
Rear-End
0
2
0
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
769420340
35
1.003
3/19/2007
Mon
900
Sideswipe
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
772032270
36
1.021
10/30/2007
Tue
1200
Right-Turn
0
0
1
Day
Dry
All Other
769414740
37
1.022
2/11/2007
Sun
1900
Left-Turn
0
0
1
Nite
Wet
Disregarded Traffic Signal
769437690
38
1.022
2/16/2007
Fri
500
Rear-End
0
2
0
Nite
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
769371890
39
1.022
2/28/2007
Wed
1400
Coll w/Utility Pole
0
1
0
Day
Dry
Unknown
769399350
40
1.022
3/1/2007
Thu
500
Left-Turn
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Improper Turn
769438670
41
1.022
3/3/2007
Sat
1900
Angle
0
3
0
Nite
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
769439420
42
1.022
3/11/2007
Sun
500
Angle
0
2
0
Nite
Dry
Disregarded Traffic Signal
769420320
43
1.022
3/16/2007
Fri
1000
Sideswipe
0
4
0
Day
Wet
Improper Turn
769460030
44
1.022
3/17/2007
Sat
800
Right-Turn
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Improper Turn
769450140
45
1.022
3/19/2007
Mon
2300
Left-Turn
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
769330580
46
1.022
3/22/2007
Thu
1300
Right-Turn
0
0
1
Day
Wet
Improper Turn
739584810
47
1.022
4/18/2007
Wed
1700
Rear-End
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Unknown
769442970
48
1.022
4/24/2007
Tue
1300
Left-Turn
0
3
0
Day
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
769440840
49
1.022
5/6/2007
Sun
300
Left-Turn
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Disregarded Traffic Signal
769476750
50
1.022
7/7/2007
Sat
100
Angle
0
4
0
Nite
Other
Disregarded Traffic Signal
769393290
51
1.022
7/12/2007
Thu
1600
Rear-End
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
769497600
52
1.022
8/8/2007
Wed
1800
Left-Turn
0
1
0
Day
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
772036220
53
1.022
10/22/2007
Mon
1000
All other
0
1
0
Day
Dry
Disregarded Traffic Signal
772057650
54
1.022
11/8/2007
Thu
1800
Head-On
0
2
0
Nite
Dry
Careless Driving
755987670
55
1.033
2/27/2007
Tue
1100
Left-Turn
0
0
1
Day
Dry
All Other
745602060
56
1.294
11/8/2007
Thu
1700
Rear-End
0
4
0
Day
Dry
Unknown
745618310
57
1.466
3/18/2007
Sun
2100
Coll w/Bicycle
1
0
0
Nite
Dry
Alcohol - Under Influence
704086390
58
1.488
3/4/2007
Sun
300
Hit Guardrail
0
2
0
Nite
Dry
802292040
59
1.69
12/17/2007
Mon
1200
Explosion
0
1
0
Day
Dry
All Other
744845050
60
2.144
5/17/2007
Thu
1400
All other
0
2
0
Day
Dry
Unknown
909483200
61
2.144
10/25/2007
Thu
600
Sideswipe
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Unknown
745601200
62
2.144
11/10/2007
Sat
1400
Angle
0
1
Day
Dry
Unknown
Total No.
Fatal
Injury
PDO
Angle
0
Fixed
Object
Side swipe
Ped/Bike
62
1
61
26
9
1
3
17
3
3
14.52%
4.84%
27.42%
4.84%
4.84%
FTYR/W
DUI
Right Turn Rear End
One Vehicle
Day
Night
Wet
Dry
1.61%
Excess
Speed
5
40
22
6
53
0
7
3
8.06%
64.52%
35.48%
9.68%
85.48%
0.00%
11.29%
4.84%
TOTAL VEHICLES ENTERING / ADT :
19,100
SPOT
ACCIDENT RATE:
SEGMENT
ACCIDENT RATE:
8.893 /MV
4.148
/MVM
Careless Driving
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
CRASH SUMMARY
SECTION:
87012000
INTERSECTING ROADWAY:
STATE ROUTE:
SR 860-Premier Pkwy
STUDY PERIOD:
FROM
1/ 08
M.P.
0
TO
TO
847
2.144 ENGINEER: Bao Ying
12/ 08
COUNTY:
Miami Dade
DATE
DAY
TIME
TYPE
FATAL
INJURY
PROP
DAM
0
4/7/2008
Mon
1800
Angle
0
0
1
Day
Wet
Failed to Yield R/W
0
6/13/2008
Fri
1500
Angle
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
1400
Left-Turn
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Improper Lane Change
2000
Backed Into
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Unknown
Sideswipe
0
0
1
Day
Wet
Unknown
1700
Rear-End
0
2
0
Day
Other
Unknown
1200
Right-Turn
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Unknown
900
Angle
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Unknown
700
Left-Turn
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
Sat
2100
Rear-End
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Followed too Closely
Wed
1500Coll w/ MV on Other Roadway 0
0
1
Day
Dry
Followed too Closely
4/19/2008
Sat
2300
Angle
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Unknown
9/28/2008
Sun
2100
Left-Turn
0
0
1
Nite
Wet
Failed to Yield R/W
3/25/2008
Tue
1600
Rear-End
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Followed too Closely
0.25
9/16/2008
Tue
2100
Left-Turn
0
1
0
Nite
Dry
Unknown
0.495
12/13/2008
Sat
800
Rear-End
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
0.499
1/27/2008
Sun
200
Angle
0
2
0
Nite
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
0.499
8/8/2008
Fri
100
Angle
0
2
0
Nite
Dry
Unknown
19
0.499
8/15/2008
Fri
1800
Right-Turn
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
742628800
20
0.551
12/13/2008
Sat
200
Angle
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Unknown
802294780
21
0.613
2/6/2008
Wed
1700
Rear-End
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Careless Driving
727719360
22
0.624
11/27/2008
Thu
2300
Sideswipe
0
1
0
Nite
Dry
Unknown
705837130
23
0.626
8/13/2008
Wed
800
Rear-End
0
2
0
Day
Dry
Unknown
802314040
24
0.743
9/5/2008
Fri
1700
Rear-End
0
1
0
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
704074850
25
0.749
9/5/2008
Fri
600
Left-Turn
0
1
0
Nite
Wet
Failed to Yield R/W
802316310
26
0.749
10/1/2008
Wed
1700
Rear-End
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Unknown
727731550
27
0.768
5/16/2008
Fri
1800
Rear-End
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Unknown
704060700
28
0.792
12/3/2008
Wed
700
Rear-End
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Unknown
705811030
29
0.816
4/22/2008
Tue
1000
Angle
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Unknown
772065810
30
0.984
1/7/2008
Mon
1800
Rear-End
0
2
0
Nite
Dry
Careless Driving
802294170
31
0.992
1/26/2008
Sat
1700Coll w/ MV on Other Roadway 0
1
0
Nite
Dry
Careless Driving
802299320
32
0.992
3/29/2008
Sat
2000
Angle
0
1
0
Nite
Dry
Unknown
802303230
33
0.992
5/12/2008
Mon
1000
Angle
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
802310350
34
0.992
7/26/2008
Sat
400
Hit Sign/Sign Post
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Careless Driving
802317910
35
0.992
10/17/2008
Fri
2000
All other
0
2
0
Nite
Dry
Unknown
802317990
36
0.992
10/18/2008
Sat
1900
Angle
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Disregarded Traffic Signal
802322130
37
0.992
12/2/2008
Tue
600
Head-On
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Disregarded Traffic Signal
772154070
38
1.003
7/18/2008
Fri
500
Rear-End
0
1
0
Nite
Dry
Careless Driving
772212540
39
1.02
12/27/2008
Sat
1900
Coll. W/ Pedestrian
0
1
0
Nite
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
772037400
40
1.022
1/7/2008
Mon
1900
Sideswipe
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Disregarded Traffic Signal
772071110
41
1.022
1/15/2008
Tue
700
Left-Turn
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
772076440
42
1.022
3/17/2008
Mon
2300
Sideswipe
0
2
0
Nite
Dry
Careless Driving
802298020
43
1.022
3/17/2008
Mon
1800
Backed Into
0
1
0
Day
Dry
Improper Backing
802298500
44
1.022
3/22/2008
Sat
1400
Head-On
0
0
1
Day
Wet
Failed to Yield R/W
727730130
45
1.022
3/29/2008
Sat
1100
Rear-End
0
1
0
Day
Dry
Unknown
772123010
46
1.022
4/13/2008
Sun
2200
Rear-End
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
727739640
47
1.022
4/15/2008
Tue
800
Angle
0
1
0
Day
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
772156530
48
1.022
7/18/2008
Fri
1700
Sideswipe
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Improper Passing
802317380
49
1.022
10/12/2008
Sun
1700
Sideswipe
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Improper Lane Change
802318170
50
1.022
10/20/2008
Mon
1400
Left-Turn
0
1
0
Day
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
802321460
51
1.022
11/24/2008
Mon
1100
Sideswipe
0
1
0
Day
Dry
Disregarded Stop Sign
802322780
52
1.022
12/8/2008
Mon
1900
Right-Turn
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Improper Turn
802311950
53
1.024
8/12/2008
Tue
500
Rear-End
0
1
0
Day
Dry
Unknown
727718410
54
1.026
5/3/2008
Sat
1200
Rear-End
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Unknown
802322520
55
1.028
12/5/2008
Fri
1900
Sideswipe
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Improper Lane Change
754707190
56
1.03
1/21/2008
Mon
2000
Coll. W/ Pedestrian
1
0
0
Nite
Dry
Unknown
802324940
57
1.06
12/30/2008
Tue
1700
All other
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Improper Lane Change
Crash Number
No.
Mile Post
802300100
1
772124350
2
802313480
3
0
8/29/2008
Fri
727719110
4
0.002
2/15/2008
Fri
745821950
5
0.009
3/30/2008
Sun
1800
727731680
6
0.009
6/21/2008
Sat
909725050
7
0.009
8/1/2008
Fri
742625040
8
0.019
6/21/2008
Sat
704074930
9
0.019
12/17/2008
Wed
802306420
10
0.028
6/14/2008
802322940
11
0.028
12/10/2008
742626850
12
0.038
802316060
13
0.038
802298840
14
0.047
727730200
15
802323200
16
802294210
17
802311490
18
802312280
DAY / NT
WET / DRY
CONTRIBUTING CAUSE
727718000
58
1.223
2/13/2008
Wed
1700
Angle
0
2
0
Nite
Wet
Unknown
911715380
59
1.288
12/18/2008
Thu
1700
Rear-End
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Careless Driving
742628660
60
1.479
4/18/2008
Fri
1400
Angle
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Unknown
727719150
61
1.644
4/18/2008
Fri
1500
Coll w/ Parked Car
0
3
0
Day
Dry
Unknown
802300190
62
2.144
4/8/2008
Tue
1700
Rear-End
0
0
1
Day
Wet
Careless Driving
727736460
63
2.144
7/6/2008
Sun
1100
Angle
1
4
0
Day
Dry
Unknown
802315780
64
2.144
9/24/2008
Wed
1500
Rear-End
1
0
Day
Wet
Followed too Closely
Total No.
Fatal
Injury
PDO
Angle
0
Fixed
Object
Side swipe
Ped/Bike
64
2
38
38
15
1
3
19
8
2
23.44%
4.69%
29.69%
12.50%
3.13%
FTYR/W
DUI
Right Turn Rear End
One Vehicle
Day
Night
Wet
Dry
1.56%
Excess
Speed
3
36
28
8
55
0
14
1
4.69%
56.25%
43.75%
12.50%
85.94%
0.00%
21.88%
1.56%
TOTAL VEHICLES ENTERING / ADT :
21,000
SPOT
ACCIDENT RATE:
SEGMENT
ACCIDENT RATE:
8.350 /MV
3.894
/MVM
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
CRASH SUMMARY
SECTION:
87012000
INTERSECTING ROADWAY:
STATE ROUTE:
SR 860-Premier Pkwy
STUDY PERIOD:
FROM
1/ 09
M.P.
0
TO
TO
847
2.144 ENGINEER: Bao Ying
12/ 09
COUNTY:
Miami Dade
DAY
TIME
TYPE
FATAL
INJURY
PROP
DAM
6/2/2009
Tue
1000
Sideswipe
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Unknown
8/19/2009
Wed
900
Angle
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Improper Lane Change
12/17/2009
Thu
2200
Rear-End
0
1
0
Nite
Wet
Followed too Closely
9/28/2009
Mon
800
Sideswipe
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Unknown
900
Fire
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Unknown
1400
Angle
0
4
0
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
2200
Angle
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Careless Driving
Sun
200
Coll w/ Parked Car
0
1
0
Nite
Wet
Careless Driving
All Other
Crash Number
No.
Mile Post
DATE
802337050
1
0
810212020
2
0
727738390
3
0
704061600
4
0.009
745821720
5
0.019
2/3/2009
Tue
906840860
6
0.038
9/23/2009
Wed
911717000
7
0.181
6/7/2009
Sun
911716890
8
0.246
6/7/2009
DAY / NT
WET / DRY
CONTRIBUTING CAUSE
727719880
9
0.25
5/9/2009
Sat
1500
Coll. W/ Pedestrian
0
1
0
Day
Dry
745824070
10
0.323
9/17/2009
Thu
2000
Rear-End
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Careless Driving
802330720
11
0.49
3/15/2009
Sun
1500
Backed Into
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Improper Backing
802328960
12
0.497
2/21/2009
Sat
2000Coll w/ MV on Other Roadway 0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Followed too Closely
802337650
13
0.498
6/11/2009
Thu
1900
Rear-End
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
802331390
14
0.499
3/21/2009
Sat
1800
Sideswipe
0
0
1
Nite
Wet
All Other
802340500
15
0.499
7/25/2009
Sat
700
Rear-End
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
810213190
16
0.499
9/1/2009
Tue
700Coll w/ MV on Other Roadway 0
0
1
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
745821890
17
0.499
9/5/2009
Sat
400
Angle
0
3
0
Nite
Dry
Disregarded Traffic Signal
810215460
18
0.499
10/4/2009
Sun
1500
Angle
0
1
0
Day
Dry
All Other
810218020
19
0.499
11/12/2009
Thu
1700
Angle
0
1
0
Nite
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
911717060
20
0.501
1/8/2009
Thu
2000
Rear-End
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Careless Driving
911671020
21
0.508
7/25/2009
Sat
2000
Rear-End
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Careless Driving
911671050
22
0.575
11/17/2009
Tue
1800
Rear-End
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
All Other
810216680
23
0.624
10/22/2009
Thu
2000
Rear-End
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Improper Lane Change
810219460
24
0.624
12/4/2009
Fri
700
Angle
0
0
1
Day
Wet
Disregarded Stop Sign
810220340
25
0.843
12/17/2009
Thu
2000
Coll. W/ Pedestrian
0
1
0
Nite
Wet
Unknown
911652070
26
0.846
6/23/2009
Tue
1100
Angle
0
1
0
Day
Wet
Failed to Yield R/W
911652450
27
0.947
7/28/2009
Tue
1300
Angle
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
802336560
28
0.973
5/27/2009
Wed
900Coll w/ MV on Other Roadway 0
0
1
Day
Dry
Followed too Closely
810218740
29
0.973
11/23/2009
Mon
802327130
30
0.992
1/30/2009
Fri
704074960
31
0.992
2/10/2009
704052290
32
0.992
5/12/2009
802336250
33
0.992
906840890
34
810215380
35
810218980
772219630
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Careless Driving
1500Coll w/ MV on Other Roadway 0
1800
Rear-End
0
1
Day
Wet
Failed to Yield R/W
Tue
800
Left-Turn
0
1
0
Day
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
Tue
1000
Head-On
0
2
0
Day
Dry
Disregarded Traffic Signal
5/23/2009
Sat
1100
Rear-End
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Followed too Closely
0.992
9/30/2009
Wed
1200
Rear-End
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
0.992
10/3/2009
Sat
1200
Head-On
0
0
1
Day
Dry
All Other
36
0.992
11/25/2009
Wed
1400
Sideswipe
0
1
0
Day
Wet
Careless Driving
37
1.003
2/2/2009
Mon
1900
Angle
0
1
0
Nite
Wet
Failed to Yield R/W
774540140
38
1.003
9/16/2009
Wed
900
Sideswipe
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Improper Lane Change
744831830
39
1.022
1/13/2009
Tue
2000
Angle
0
2
0
Nite
Wet
Unknown
802331580
40
1.022
3/25/2009
Wed
1100
Angle
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Unknown
802339700
41
1.022
7/13/2009
Mon
1700
Sideswipe
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Improper Lane Change
802339990
42
1.022
7/18/2009
Sat
2200
Angle
0
1
0
Nite
Wet
Failed to Yield R/W
774555400
43
1.022
11/19/2009
Thu
1900
Left-Turn
0
2
0
Nite
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
774569260
44
1.025
12/28/2009
Mon
1200
Rear-End
0
1
0
Day
Dry
Unknown
802332690
45
1.041
4/9/2009
Thu
1300
Coll. W/ Pedestrian
0
1
0
Day
Dry
All Other
802336670
46
1.041
5/28/2009
Thu
1600Coll w/ MV on Other Roadway 0
0
1
Day
Wet
Improper Lane Change
810216720
47
1.068
10/23/2009
Fri
2100
Angle
0
2
0
Nite
Dry
Careless Driving
810219120
48
1.242
11/29/2009
Sun
600
Angle
0
2
0
Nite
Dry
Careless Driving
802327970
49
2.144
2/10/2009
Tue
800
Sideswipe
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
802338130
50
2.144
6/18/2009
Thu
1800
Rear-End
0
1
0
Day
Dry
Followed too Closely
802339480
51
2.144
7/9/2009
Thu
1700
Angle
1
0
Day
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
Total No.
Fatal
Injury
PDO
Angle
0
Fixed
Object
Side swipe
Ped/Bike
51
0
32
29
16
0
0
13
7
3
31.37%
0.00%
25.49%
13.73%
5.88%
FTYR/W
DUI
9
0
One Vehicle
Day
Night
Wet
Dry
0.00%
Excess
Speed
4
31
20
12
39
0
Right Turn Rear End
7.84%
60.78%
TOTAL VEHICLES ENTERING / ADT :
39.22%
23.53%
22,000
76.47%
0.00%
17.65%
0.00%
SPOT
ACCIDENT RATE:
SEGMENT
ACCIDENT RATE:
6.351 /MV
2.962
/MVM
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
CRASH SUMMARY
SECTION:
87012000
INTERSECTING ROADWAY:
STATE ROUTE:
SR 860-Premier Pkwy
STUDY PERIOD:
FROM
1/ 10
M.P.
0
TO
FATAL
TO
12/ 10
INJURY
847
2.144 ENGINEER: Bao Ying
COUNTY:
PROP
DAM
DAY / NT
WET / DRY
Miami Dade
Crash Number
No.
Mile Post
DATE
DAY
TIME
TYPE
CONTRIBUTING CAUSE
810237710
1
0
8/17/2010
Tue
2200
Sideswipe
0
1
0
Nite
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
774711830
2
0
12/9/2010
Thu
1800
All other
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Unknown
810242890
3
0.006
10/30/2010
Sat
100
All other
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Careless Driving
810243240
4
0.009
11/3/2010
Wed
1200
Left-Turn
0
0
1
Day
Wet
Unknown
810230820
5
0.014
5/11/2010
Tue
1600Coll w/ MV on Other Roadway 0
1
0
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
810238640
6
0.019
8/30/2010
Mon
1600
Coll. W/ Pedestrian
0
1
0
Day
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
810240540
7
0.019
9/26/2010
Sun
2300
Angle
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Improper Lane Change
810224180
8
0.047
2/15/2010
Mon
1200
Coll. W/ Pedestrian
0
1
0
Day
Dry
All Other
810245480
9
0.057
12/5/2010
Sun
0
Coll. W/ Pedestrian
0
1
0
Nite
Dry
Careless Driving
810238320
10
0.118
8/26/2010
Thu
1500
Angle
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Improper Lane Change
810240790
11
0.147
9/30/2010
Thu
1400
Rear-End
0
2
0
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
810226860
12
0.178
3/21/2010
Sun
2000
Rear-End
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Followed too Closely
810230270
13
0.181
5/5/2010
Wed
1700
All other
0
2
0
Day
Dry
All Other
810240330
14
0.181
9/24/2010
Fri
1500
Angle
0
1
0
Day
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
810240250
15
0.19
9/23/2010
Thu
1700
Rear-End
0
0
1
Day
Wet
Followed too Closely
810246790
16
0.2
12/21/2010
Tue
2100
Rear-End
0
3
0
Nite
Dry
Careless Driving
810238000
17
0.202
8/17/2010
Tue
1700
Tree/Shrubbery
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Fleeing Police
704061910
18
0.499
2/6/2010
Sat
1100
Rear-End
0
1
0
Day
Dry
Followed too Closely
704061920
19
0.499
2/14/2010
Sun
1100
Left-Turn
0
1
0
Day
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
909611100
20
0.499
9/30/2010
Thu
800
Sideswipe
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
810243860
21
0.499
11/12/2010
Fri
1800
Right-Turn
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
810224850
22
0.501
2/24/2010
Wed
1800
Rear-End
0
1
0
Nite
Wet
Careless Driving
745635020
23
0.518
5/21/2010
Fri
1400
Rear-End
0
2
0
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
911651470
24
0.74
5/31/2010
Mon
1200
Angle
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
810228950
25
0.749
4/15/2010
Thu
1300
Angle
0
1
0
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
704060090
26
0.749
12/26/2010
Sun
100
Sideswipe
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Careless Driving
810222320
27
0.816
1/17/2010
Sun
100
All other
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Careless Driving
911652480
28
0.816
1/23/2010
Sat
2100
Left-Turn
0
1
0
Nite
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
810245780
29
0.825
12/8/2010
Wed
1900
Angle
0
1
0
Nite
Dry
Careless Driving
810233290
30
0.845
6/13/2010
Sun
2000
Rear-End
0
4
0
Nite
Dry
Careless Driving
910370000
31
0.99
3/21/2010
Sun
1100
Sideswipe
0
1
0
Day
Dry
All Other
810221840
32
0.992
1/9/2010
Sat
1700
Rear-End
0
0
1
Nite
Wet
Followed too Closely
906840980
33
0.992
1/12/2010
Tue
800
Rear-End
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
810235530
34
0.992
7/15/2010
Thu
1500
Sideswipe
0
2
0
Day
Dry
All Other
810241880
35
0.992
10/14/2010
Thu
600Coll w/ MV on Other Roadway 0
0
1
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
906826420
36
0.992
12/14/2010
Tue
1000
Angle
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
745823800
37
0.992
12/17/2010
Fri
1500
Rear-End
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
774708310
38
0.994
12/2/2010
Thu
2000
Angle
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Careless Driving
810235160
39
1.001
7/9/2010
Fri
1900
Rear-End
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
810242530
40
1.001
10/24/2010
Sun
1900
Rear-End
0
3
0
Nite
Slippery
Careless Driving
911719500
41
1.003
3/3/2010
Wed
1500
Rear-End
0
1
0
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
810226800
42
1.011
3/21/2010
Sun
1100
Hit Sign/Sign Post
0
2
0
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
774674990
43
1.016
11/15/2010
Mon
1500
Rear-End
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
810226910
44
1.022
3/22/2010
Mon
1100
Rear-End
0
0
1
Day
Wet
Careless Driving
774618760
45
1.022
4/2/2010
Fri
2300
Angle
0
1
0
Nite
Dry
Disregarded Traffic Signal
810227830
46
1.022
4/2/2010
Fri
100
Angle
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
909633100
47
1.022
4/14/2010
Wed
0
Angle
0
0
1
Nite
Wet
Disregarded Traffic Signal
810232100
48
1.022
5/28/2010
Fri
1800
Sideswipe
0
0
1
Day
Wet
Careless Driving
810232340
49
1.022
6/1/2010
Tue
500
Left-Turn
0
2
0
Nite
Wet
Failed to Yield R/W
810234020
50
1.022
6/22/2010
Tue
1700
Left-Turn
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Improper Turn
810236340
51
1.022
7/27/2010
Tue
900
All other
0
0
1
Day
Dry
All Other
810237900
52
1.022
8/20/2010
Fri
1800
Right-Turn
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Improper Turn
774699640
53
1.022
9/1/2010
Wed
1800
Angle
0
1
0
Day
Dry
Disregarded Traffic Signal
774697710
54
1.022
9/3/2010
Fri
1900
Angle
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
810241280
55
1.022
10/6/2010
Wed
1300
Angle
0
1
0
Day
Dry
All Other
769291380
56
1.022
10/9/2010
Sat
1700
Angle
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Improper Lane Change
810233350
57
1.03
6/14/2010
Mon
900
Angle
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
774595490
58
1.031
3/22/2010
Mon
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
810244390
59
1.031
11/19/2010
Fri
1700
1700Coll w/ MV on Other Roadway 0
Rear-End
0
1
Nite
Dry
Careless Driving
810223520
60
1.06
2/4/2010
Thu
1600
Rear-End
0
1
0
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
810244580
61
1.242
11/21/2010
Sun
1900
Rear-End
0
0
1
Nite
Wet
Careless Driving
754982000
62
1.325
4/19/2010
Mon
1100
Coll w/Mv. Object
0
0
1
Day
Wet
Unknown
810223220
63
2.106
2/1/2010
Mon
1000Coll w/ MV on Other Roadway 0
2
0
Day
Wet
Careless Driving
910361190
64
2.144
4/1/2010
Thu
1500
Angle
0
2
0
Day
Dry
Improper Turn
810231770
65
2.144
5/25/2010
Tue
1000
Rear-End
0
1
0
Day
Dry
Followed too Closely
810234720
66
2.144
7/2/2010
Fri
1900
Angle
0
4
0
Nite
Dry
Careless Driving
810241830
67
2.144
10/12/2010
Tue
2100
Left-Turn
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
910360360
68
2.144
10/31/2010
Sun
1300
Rear-End
0
1
0
Day
Wet
Careless Driving
810243610
69
2.144
11/8/2010
Mon
1700
All other
0
0
1
Day
Dry
All Other
910363460
70
2.144
12/26/2010
Sun
2000
Angle
7
0
Nite
Dry
Improper Turn
Total No.
Fatal
Injury
PDO
Angle
0
Fixed
Object
Side swipe
Ped/Bike
70
0
57
37
19
2
2
21
6
3
27.14%
2.86%
30.00%
8.57%
4.29%
FTYR/W
DUI
Right Turn Rear End
One Vehicle
Day
Night
Wet
Dry
2.86%
Excess
Speed
4
43
27
12
57
0
15
4
5.71%
61.43%
38.57%
17.14%
81.43%
0.00%
21.43%
5.71%
TOTAL VEHICLES ENTERING / ADT :
24,000
SPOT
ACCIDENT RATE:
SEGMENT
ACCIDENT RATE:
7.991 /MV
3.727
/MVM
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
CRASH SUMMARY
SECTION:
87012000
INTERSECTING ROADWAY:
STATE ROUTE:
SR 860-Premier Pkwy
STUDY PERIOD:
FROM
Mile Post
DATE
1/ 11
DAY
M.P.
0
TO
TO
12/ 11
COUNTY:
PROP
DAM
No.
TIME
TYPE
FATAL
810256440
1
0
4/25/2011
824948370
2
0.028
1/26/2011
Mon
1400
Angle
0
1
0
Day
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
Wed
1900Coll w/ MV on Other Roadway 0
0
1
Nite
Dry
All Other
810254170
3
0.038
4/1/2011
Fri
1500
Coll. W/ Pedestrian
0
2
0
Day
Dry
Unknown
810259850
4
0.059
6/4/2011
Sat
1400
Angle
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
810261790
5
0.156
6/29/2011
Wed
2200
Head-On
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
All Other
810272990
6
0.181
11/21/2011
Mon
700
Angle
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
824950640
7
0.189
3/21/2011
Mon
1800
Angle
0
0
1
Day
Dry
All Other
810267280
8
0.219
9/9/2011
Fri
1100
Coll w/ Parked Car
0
0
1
Day
Dry
All Other
810263530
9
0.442
7/21/2011
Thu
1600
Rear-End
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Followed too Closely
810261390
10
0.461
6/24/2011
Fri
1200
Rear-End
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Followed too Closely
810251190
11
0.499
2/11/2011
Fri
800Coll w/ MV on Other Roadway 0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Careless Driving
810251910
12
0.499
3/1/2011
Tue
900
0
1
0
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
824954970
13
0.499
10/11/2011
Tue
800Coll w/ MV on Other Roadway 0
1
0
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
810272020
14
0.5
11/5/2011
Sat
1500
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Followed too Closely
824950130
15
0.501
2/28/2011
Mon
1600Coll w/ MV on Other Roadway 0
0
1
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
810251110
16
0.697
2/19/2011
Sat
1100Coll w/ MV on Other Roadway 0
0
1
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
810268460
17
0.749
9/26/2011
Mon
1000
Angle
0
0
1
Day
Wet
Improper Turn
810252760
18
0.816
3/12/2011
Sat
2300
Angle
0
1
0
Nite
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
Rear-End
DAY / NT
WET / DRY
Miami Dade
Crash Number
Rear-End
INJURY
847
2.144 ENGINEER: Bao Ying
CONTRIBUTING CAUSE
63531200
19
0.816
12/14/2011
Wed
1800
Rear-End
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Careless Driving
824952640
20
0.845
6/27/2011
Mon
1600
Rear-End
0
1
0
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
824951460
21
0.984
4/30/2011
Sat
800
Rear-End
0
6
0
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
820467460
22
0.984
1/3/2011
Mon
1800
Angle
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Improper Passing
820467610
23
0.984
1/17/2011
Mon
1600
Rear-End
0
0
1
Day
Wet
Careless Driving
810273010
24
0.984
11/21/2011
Mon
1300
Rear-End
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
824948110
25
0.992
1/21/2011
Fri
1900
#N/A
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
#N/A
824948130
26
0.992
1/22/2011
Sat
1400Coll w/ MV on Other Roadway 0
6
0
Day
Dry
Disregarded Traffic Signal
824950180
27
0.992
3/2/2011
Wed
1800
Angle
0
1
0
Nite
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
810262390
28
0.992
7/6/2011
Wed
2200
Rear-End
0
0
1
Nite
Wet
Careless Driving
810266170
29
0.992
8/26/2011
Fri
1000
Angle
0
1
0
Day
Dry
Disregarded Other Traffic Control
810268430
30
0.992
9/25/2011
Sun
2000
Rear-End
0
1
0
Nite
Wet
Followed too Closely
824954870
31
0.992
10/6/2011
Thu
800
Rear-End
0
2
0
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
828262620
32
0.994
10/11/2011
Tue
1700Coll w/ MV on Other Roadway 0
1
0
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
810247820
33
1.001
1/3/2011
Mon
1400
Rear-End
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Followed too Closely
820800040
34
1.003
5/28/2011
Sat
1900
#N/A
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
#N/A
820251530
35
1.022
1/17/2011
Mon
1300
Angle
0
4
0
Day
Wet
Disregarded Traffic Signal
820365120
36
1.022
1/26/2011
Wed
2100
Angle
0
1
0
Nite
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
810255080
37
1.022
4/9/2011
Sat
2000
Angle
0
1
0
Nite
Dry
Disregarded Traffic Signal
810255110
38
1.022
4/9/2011
Sat
100
Angle
0
2
0
Nite
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
820411410
39
1.022
5/24/2011
Tue
2200
Angle
0
3
0
Nite
Dry
Disregarded Traffic Signal
810261100
40
1.022
6/19/2011
Sun
1600
Rear-End
0
4
0
Day
Wet
Careless Driving
824952710
41
1.022
6/30/2011
Thu
1800
Angle
0
0
1
Day
Wet
Disregarded Traffic Signal
824956400
42
1.022
12/8/2011
Thu
1400
Rear-End
0
1
0
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
824956450
43
1.022
12/9/2011
Fri
1300
Rear-End
0
0
1
Day
Dry
All Other
810274800
44
1.022
12/12/2011
Mon
1500
Angle
0
0
1
Day
Wet
Failed to Yield R/W
810275250
45
1.022
12/19/2011
Mon
1600Coll w/ MV on Other Roadway 0
0
1
Day
Dry
Unknown
810247760
46
1.05
1/3/2011
Mon
1400
Coll w/Bicycle
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Unknown
810264620
47
1.06
8/5/2011
Fri
1600
Angle
0
1
0
Day
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
810271190
48
1.06
10/26/2011
Wed
1800
Rear-End
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
810272790
49
1.06
11/17/2011
Thu
2000
Coll w/ Parked Car
0
2
0
Nite
Dry
Careless Driving
810273000
50
1.29
11/21/2011
Mon
1000
Rear-End
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
810274310
51
1.29
12/5/2011
Mon
1500
Rear-End
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Careless Driving
810274680
52
1.29
12/11/2011
Sun
1200
Angle
0
0
1
Day
Wet
All Other
63527720
53
1.294
2/4/2011
Fri
0
Rear-End
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Followed too Closely
810264670
54
1.479
8/6/2011
Sat
1400
Angle
0
0
1
Day
Dry
Improper Turn
810251240
55
2.144
2/21/2011
Mon
500
Head-On
0
1
0
Nite
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
810252520
56
2.144
3/9/2011
Wed
800
Angle
0
1
0
Day
Dry
Failed to Yield R/W
810254990
57
2.144
4/8/2011
Fri
2000
Rear-End
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Followed too Closely
810255000
58
2.144
4/8/2011
Fri
2200
Head-On
0
1
0
Nite
Dry
810270630
59
2.144
10/19/2011
Wed
2100
Angle
0
0
1
Nite
Dry
Unknown
810275530
60
2.144
12/23/2011
Fri
1600
Left-Turn
0
1
Day
Dry
Careless Driving
Total No.
Fatal
Injury
PDO
Angle
0
Fixed
Object
Side swipe
Ped/Bike
60
0
47
35
21
0
0
21
0
2
35.00%
0.00%
35.00%
0.00%
3.33%
FTYR/W
DUI
Right Turn Rear End
One Vehicle
Day
Night
Wet
Dry
0.00%
Excess
Speed
1
40
20
9
51
1
12
1
1.67%
66.67%
33.33%
15.00%
85.00%
1.67%
20.00%
1.67%
TOTAL VEHICLES ENTERING / ADT :
26,500
SPOT
ACCIDENT RATE:
SEGMENT
ACCIDENT RATE:
6.203 /MV
2.893
/MVM
Failed to Yield R/W
Appendix C
State Safety Office Bulletin 10-01
Florida Department of Transportation
CHARLIE CRIST
GOVERNOR
605 Suwannee Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450
STEPHANIE C. KOPELOUSOS
SECRETARY
STATE SAFETY OFFICE BULLETIN 10-01
ROADWAY DESIGN BULLETIN 10-09
DATE:
August 5, 2010
TO:
District Design Engineers, District Traffic Operation Engineers, Distri t Safety En . eers, Plans
Preparation Manual Holders
FROM:
David C. O'Hagan, PE, State Roadway Design Enginee
Joseph B. Santos, PE, Transportation Safety Engineer
COPIES:
Brian Blanchard, Robert Robertson, Marianne Trussell, Thomas Bane, Roosevelt Petithomme,
Duane Brautigam, Chris Richter (FHWA)
SUBJECT:
Benefit/Cost Analysis, Roadside Safety Analysis Program and Discount (Interest) Rate
Benefit/Cost Analysis Background:
The use of the Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) has not consistently been followed throughout the state. Resources
have varied from the University of Florida 1988 Accident Reduction Factors for Use in Calculating Benefit/Cost to
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Desktop Reference for Crash Reduction Factors.
Requirements:
To ensure that the items are used consistently, the following guidance is provided for obtaining the CRF in the
Benefit/Cost analysis process (in the order of preference):
1.
Florida Department of Transportation State Safety Office (550) - Crash Reduction Analysis System Hub (CRASH)
CRASH is a web-based database application developed to systematically maintain statewide safety
improvement project data to facilitate the continual process of updating CRFs. An excel spreadsheet of
the CRFs is maintained on the 550 SharePoint:
http://cosharepoint.dot.state.fl. us!sites!safety!Safety%20Engi neeri ng!references!defa uIt.aspx
Without access to the 550 SharePoint, contact Joe Santos at joseph.santos@dot.state.fl.us
CRF utilized should be based on crash type. If there are multiple crash types it is recommended to utilize
the CRF associated with the "Total" column. If there were less than 5 projects for the improvement type
to generate the CRF, the resulting CRF may not be appropriate for the analysis. Proceed to the FHWA
Crash Modification Factors (CMF) Clearinghouse.
2.
FHWA Crash Modification Factors (CMF) Clearinghouse
http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/
The Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse houses a Web-based database of CMFs along with
supporting documentation to help transportation engineers identify the most appropriate
countermeasure for their safety needs.
The FHWA Desktop Reference for Crash Reduction Factors
publication is contained within the database.
www.dot.state.fl.us
August 5, 2010
State Safety Office Bulletin 10-01
Roadway Design Bulletin 10-09
Page 2 of 3
The quality of the countermeasure is important (number of stars). The star rating is based on a scale (1 to 5),
where a 5 indicates the highest or most reliable rating.
Implementation:
These changes are effective immediately on all Design Exception and Variation submittals, and will be addressed in
the January 1, 2011 Plans Preparation Manual (PPM) update.
Roadside Safety Analysis Program and Discount (Interest) Rate Background:
 The January 1, 2007 PPM contained changes to the methods for calculating the benefit/cost analysis for
Design Exceptions and Variations. ROADSIDE 5.0 was replaced with RSAP. This Design Bulletin provides
the updated crash cost figures to be utilized in the RSAP program.

The interest rate used in calculating the present value of expected yearly benefits and costs is known as the
discount rate. The discount rate should be appropriate for current economic conditions, in percent. The
value may be adjusted to accommodate economic factors which provide the real difference of interest
charged and annual inflation or satisfy a Rule requirement. In conducting a benefit-cost analysis the
appropriate capital recovery factory must be applied in the calculation when using the Historical Crash
Method. In recent years the various offices within Roadway Design and the State Safety Office have utilized
different rates when conducting benefit-cost analysis. This bulleting provides one rate for all offices to use.
Requirements:
In the Plans Preparation Manual, Volume 1, Section 23.5, replace item “y” with the following:
y)
For areas with crash histories or when a benefit to cost analysis is requested, provide a time value analysis
between the benefit to society quantified in dollars and the costs to society quantified in dollars over the life
of the exception. In general practice the benefit to society is quantified by the reduction in crash cost
foreseeable because of the proposed design and the cost due to the implementation of that change such as
construction and maintenance costs over the life of the project. The Discount (interest) rate to be utilized in
benefit/cost analysis is 4%.
Two acceptable methods for calculating a benefit/cost analysis are:
1. Roadside Safety Analysis Program (RSAP)
This method complements the Roadside Design Guide dated June 2002. When hazards cannot be
removed or relocated, designers need to determine if a safety device, such as a guardrail or a crash
cushion, is warranted to protect motorists from the roadside obstacle. This method can be used to
perform a benefit/cost analysis comparing a safety treatment with the existing or baseline conditions (i.e.,
the do-nothing option) and/or alternative safety treatments. Based on the input (offsets, traffic, slopes,
crash history, traffic accident severity levels, etc.) of information available to the user, the program will
offer results which can be used in comparing courses of action.
When utilizing RSAP for analysis, the accident severity level costs to be should be revised as follows:
Option 3: KABCO
Crash Severity
Comprehensive Crash Cost
Fatal (K)
$6,380,000
Severe Injury (A)
$521,768
Moderate Injury (B)
$104,052
Minor Injury (C)
$63,510
Property Damage Only (O)
$6,500
Source: Florida Department of Transportation Crash Analysis Reporting (C.A.R.) System
www.dot.state.fl.us
August 5, 2010
State Safety Office Bulletin 10-01
Roadway Design Bulletin 10-09
Page 3 of 3
2.
Historical Crash Method (HCM)
This method can be used for sites with a crash history. It is basically the ratio (benefit/cost) of the
estimated reduction in crash costs to the estimated increase in construction and maintenance cost.
The annualized conversion will show whether the estimated expenditure of funds for the benefit will
exceed the direct cost, thereby lending support as to whether the improvement should be done or not.
The HCM uses the following Highway Safety Improvement Program Guideline (HSIPG) cost per crash
by facility type to estimate benefit to society while the cost to society is estimated by the cost of right
of way, construction, and maintenance.
HSIPG COST/CRASH BY FACILITY TYPE
DIVIDED
FACILITY
TYPE
URBAN
SUBURBAN
2-3 Lanes
$85,851
$151,015
4-5 Lanes
$83,359
$181,265
6+ Lanes
$107,658
$130,385
Interstate
$141,197
n/a
Turnpike
$124,459
n/a
RURAL
$260,531
$366,422
$478,263
$295,810
$215,507
URBAN
$92,847
$83,359
n/a
n/a
n/a
UNDIVIDED
SUBURBAN
$228,613
$193,774
n/a
n/a
n/a
RURAL
$402,003
$94,171
n/a
n/a
n/a
All State Roads Average Cost/Crash: $142,472
*The above values were derived from 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 traffic crash and injury severity
data for crashes on state roads in Florida, using the formulation described in FHWA Technical Advisory
“Motor Vehicle Accident Costs”, T 7570.1, dated June 30, 1988 and FHWA Technical Advisory, T 7570.2,
dated October 31, 1994 using updated fatality cost of $5.8 million as recommended in the U.S. Department
of Transportation Office of Secretary Transportation memo, Treatment of the Economic Value of a
Statistical
Life
in
Department
Analysis
dated
February
5,
2008
(http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/reports/080205.htm).
Implementation:
These changes are effective immediately on all Design Exception and Variation submittals. Please note that
AASHTO has recently published the first edition of the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) which provides additional
safety analysis tools and provides additional information on the CMFs. The Department is working on an
implementation plan to address the use of the HSM and further guidance will be included in a future update to the PPM.
Contacts:
For Safety related issues:
Joseph B. Santos, PE
Transportation Safety Engineer
(850) 245-1502
joseph.santos@dot.state.fl.us
For Roadway related issues:
Rob Quigley, PE
Roadway Design Engineer
(850) 414-4356
robert.quigley@dot.state.fl.us
www.dot.state.fl.us
Appendix D
Cost Estimate per Light Pole
SR 847 Cost Estimate per Light Pole
Item Description
Unit
Quantity
Unit Cost
Total
40’ Aluminum Light Pole (see Note 1)
EA
1
$7,529.00
$7,529.00
Pull Box
EA
1
$429.00
$429.00
2” PVC Conduit
LF
260
$4.00
$1,040.00
Conductors (see Note 2)
LF
1,300
$1.93
$2,509.00
Pole Cable Dist Sys, Conventional
EA
1
$600.00
$600.00
Sub Total
$12,107.00
Contingency (10%)
$1,211.00
Total
Note 1: Includes pole, luminaire arm, transformer base and foundation
Note 2: Two (2) circuits per side of roadway
$13,318.00
Appendix E
Photometric Analysis