Study Details
Study Title: Safety Effectiveness of STOP AHEAD Pavement Markings
Authors: Gross et al.
Publication Date:JAN, 2008
Abstract: There is a need to rigorously evaluate low-cost safety strategies that States may implement as part of their Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). Highway safety funds are limited and it is important to identify those strategies that are cost-effective. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) organized a Pooled Fund Study of 26 States to evaluate low-cost safety strategies as part of their strategic highway safety effort; STOP AHEAD pavement markings were one strategy selected for investigation. Geometric, traffic, and crash data were obtained for 175 intersections with STOP AHEAD pavement markings in Arkansas, Maryland, and Minnesota. Similar data were obtained for reference sites within each State. An empirical Bayes approach was incorporated in a beforeafter study design to evaluate the safety effectiveness of the STOP AHEAD pavement markings. An aggregate analysis indicated a significant reduction in total crashes for Arkansas, Maryland, and the two States combined. There was also a significant reduction in right-angle and rear-end crashes for Arkansas and a general reduction in injury crashes. A disaggregate analysis indicated that crash reductions are significantly greater at three-legged intersections compared to four-legged intersections. The strategy was also more ffective at intersections with all-way stopcontrol (AWSC). Given the low-cost of this strategy, even with conservatively high cost estimates, a modest reduction in crashes is needed to justify their use. Based on the estimated safety effectiveness, the necessary crash reduction is easily achievable.
Study Citation: Gross, F., Jagannathan, R., Lyon, C., and Eccles, K., "Safety Effectiveness of STOP AHEAD Pavement Markings", Presented at the 87th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, 2008
CMFs Associated With This Study
Category: Delineation
Countermeasure: Provide "Stop Ahead" pavement markings
| CMF | CRF(%) | Quality | Crash Type | Crash Severity | Roadway Type | Area Type |
|---|
| 1.04[I*] | -4 |  | Angle | All | Not Specified | Rural |
