ANALYSIS OF ACCESS VIOLATIONS ON CONTROLLED ACCESS FACILITIES

by

William E. Tipton Research Assistant

Research Report Number 65-1

Access Violations Research Project Number 2-18-63-65

Sponsored by

The Texas Highway Department In Cooperation with the

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads

August, 1965

TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE Texas A&M University College Station, Texas

ABSTRACT

A cooperative research program of the Texas Transportation In­stitute, the Texas Highway Department, and the U. S. Bureau of Public Roads was undertaken to study the problem of access violations on controlled access facilities across the State of Texas. The author cataloged the access violations into 28 types. Each type defines the areas eros sed during the violation maneuver. Aerial photos illustrate many of the types of violations.

The extent of access violation locations and the causes of access violations are shown. The effectiveness of present control features as rated by the personnel completing the data collection forms is pre­sented.

Additional considerations concerning access violations such as types of violators 1 purpose of violations 1 average daily traffic, severity of violation, additional distance and/ or time to go the legal route, and enforcement are discussed to furnish complete background information.

The author shows the significance of the results and applications to traffic operations. The need for the study of wrong-way maneuvers on freeway exit ramps is emphasized~

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION •. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,

STUDY PROCEDURE t e e e e e e . e e t • e e • e e 0 0 $ e e 0 G ~

DATA COLLECTION ••••••••••••••eeoooct

ANALYSIS OF DATA f e • e • • • • - • • • • ~ o o ~ e e &

RESULTS •••••• · ••••. . . • • • • • • • • • 0 0 •

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS • • • • • • • • ~ • • • • • 0 0 0 0

CONCLUSIONS ..................... 1)000

RECOMMENDATIONS t 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 0 & 0 0

REFERENCES ••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • o • • • e o

Page l

2

2

5

5

23

28

29

48

'_ .. ; ·.;

__ 1

· .. _;,_

ANALYSIS OF ACCESS VIOLATIONS ON CONTROLLED ACCESS FACILITIES

INTRODUCTION

A freeway is a divided arterial highway for through traffic, with · full control of access .and grade separations at all crossings, but a motorist defines a freeway by the quality of service it provides rather than its physical characteristics. The motorist views the freeway as

<. a superhighway which eliminates annoyances, hazards of left tu,rris, blind intersections, dangerous curves, and distractions. Close to the

. highway. Freeways are expected to be a motorist• s highway with motorist's needs anUcipated a.nd fulfilled to a much higher degree than . . . . - .

on conventional highways. Experience has shown, however, that it is not -enough to merely build freeways. To deliver the promised safety, comfort, and convenience, freeways must have a high degree of opera­tional attention. Control of access, one feature of freeway design, irrtplaes.that·the dgtrt,s to light, air, view, and access are controlled by public authority. This feature provides a fundamental change in the concept of modern highway a,. There were indications,_ however, that the access control feature of freeway design was b~ing violated and that additional controls may be required to insure a,ccess control.

The general objectives of this project were to determine the extent and causes of access violations on controlled access facilities, arid to 8rovide data that would be useful in controlling existing access viola­tions and in anticipating and eliminating future violations.

The_ specific obj eqtives of this study were:

1. To catalog the types of access violations on controlled access facilities.,

_ 2. To determine the ... extent and causes of access violations.

3. To determine th~ effectiveness of various design and control features pr:esently being utilized to prevent access violations.

STUDY PROCEDURE

Data Collection

To achieve the objective to' deterriHne~ fh'e .. extent of access viola­tions, it was decided to collect data on controlled access facilities across the State of Texas. Data were collected on approximately 770 miles of freeway which lnciluded!all Interstate 'H:±.ghways withinAhe State. The locations of the facilities from. which data were actually· collected are shown in Ff:gure 1. Since' the data, collection was to be accomplished on a state-wide basis, it was determined that, the T:exa.s Highway Department would request each ~Diistrict 1 s maintenance personnel to collect the data using'i:fstandatd''dctta collection form. ··Although·Dis­trict maintenance personne-l. were requested :to· complete the ,data cp!~ec;­tion form 1 in many districts the traffic engineering personnel completed or supervised the comple<tit>n o·f the -data collection forms • ';I'he Xexas , Highway Department Districts participating in this. project were numbers: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4, 8 1 9 , 10, 12 .,-· 14, 15, 1,6 , 17, 18, 2 0, 21, 2 3 , and 2 4.

The "Shoulder and Test Area Use Procedure Guide" 1 w~s h~lpful in making a data collectibrt' forftf. kfirst·form was made and evaluated in the field to. determine its shortcomings. The necessary changes were made and the form was again reviewed and cleared for statewide data collection. Material.s.~:ln addition to the data· co11e.ction form§ s~mt to ·~

each Texas Highway Department district were: an Extract of the Project Statement, Data Collection Procedure sheets 1 ·and two completed··sample data collection forms.· The Extract from the, Project Statement.explained the specific aim ofthe investigation, the method of procedure to be used, and the significance of the research.·· The Data Collection Procedure' · sheets (Figure 2) explained the purpose of the investigation and the in­formation desired, and gave directions for completing the data collection form.

Data requested in addition to the data collection form were: a Dis­trict Control-Section map showing the location of the facilities from which data were collected, a schematic sheet with a sketch illustrating the con­ditions for each violation, photographs 1 if possible, and any pertinent information not covered in the form. The data collection personnel had four methods of determining acce'ss vi'olations. They were: (1) to see a violation actually take place, (2) to see .. the tracks at. violations that had occurred previously 1 {3) to remember violations that had been seen on other occasions, and ( 4) to note past violations which have been eliminated by corrective measures.

-2-

AMARILLO 66

STUDY LOCATIONS

FIGURE _l

FIGURE 2

DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE for

ANALYSIS OF ACCESS VIOLATIONS ON CONTROLLED ACCESS FACILITIES

PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION

The extent and causes of access violations and unauthorized maneuvers on Controlled Access facilities must be determined. Ultimately this information will be used to remedy existing problem violations and to anticipate. and eliminate future problem violations at the design level.

INFORMATION DESIRED

1. Data Collection Form: A Data Collection Form should be completed when there is evidence of access violations or unauthorized maneuvers. Use a separate form for each violation. A form should also be completed for past prob­lem violations which perhaps no longer exist due tp cor­rective measures taken by the Department.

2. District Control.,..Sectioh Map showing the location of con­trolled access facilities from which the data ·are. collected.

3. Schematic sheet with approximately a 1" = 200• scale with a sketch illustrating the conditions for each vi.olation.

4. Photographs if possible.

5 • Any pertinent information not covered in the form.

-4-

---- -------------------------------------------------------,

Data collection was accomplished on a one-time basis by all Dis­tricts during the month of March or April, 1964~ This means that the personnel drove through the facility one time only, completing the data collection forms and taking photographs. Aerial photographs were made of the major types of violations and some of the causes of violations for inclusion j,n this report~

Analysis of Data

Upon receipt of the data, the forms were checked against the sketch of the violation to insure that each form had been correctly completed. Any errors in the Data Collection form which could be determined were corrected. This review of the data collection forms revealed that some changes should be made in the form. Many of the questionnaires had blocks with "Other 11 checked and the same comment entered. These forms were altered to add separate blocks for these comments before the data were removed. The revised form which included these alterations is shown in Figures 3 and 4.

The data were then punched into IBM cards with the coding shown in Appendix Ao and sorted on the desired columns using an IBM Sorting Machine. Next 1 the contents of the sorted cards were printed on paper using the IBM 407 Accounting Machine. This machine printed a list of the card contents sorted on a certain column and a count of the number of cards printed. Thus, a permanent record of the sorting process was achieved for use in graphically illustrating the project results.

RESULTS

Types of Access Violations

The first objective of this project was to catalog the types of access violations occurring on controlled access facilities. Access violations were cataloged into types of violations as determined by the path or route of the violator. Each type of violation described the freeway areas crossed during the violation maneuver and the violator as direction of travel. Flgure 5 defines the freeway areas as used in naming the types of violations. An example of one type of violation was a "separation strip crossing, exit where no exit ramp exists," which means that the separation strip was crossed in making an illegal departure from the freeway facility.

-5-

1.

FIGURE 3

Data Collection Form

f'or

Analysis of' Access Violations on Controlled Access Facilities .

VIOLATION NUMBER: ________ ---r=-=:--------~-------District County Highway mN~um~b~e~r~-----------.Betwee~n::::::::::::::An~d~===~~~~~~--~--~---Gontrol Section Station (approximate) Urban ~-----~Rur~a~l.-----------Location with respect·to nearest access (Inzt~er~ch~a~n~g~e~,~Gr~ad~e Sep~ar~a~t~i~o~n~o~r-n~e~a~r~b~y road):

------------------------------------------------------~---------

2. DATE: 3. INSPE'C"'""TO"'R""":-------------4. VIOLATOR: (Check appropriate block)

(-) .Pedestrian {-) Animal (-) Vehicle (_) other: (Note any specif'ic group of' violators such as telep_h_o-ne--o-.r--p_o_w-er __ c_o_m_p_a_n_i_e_s-,-----school children, etc.)

5. TYPE OF VIOLATION: (Check appropriate block or blocks)

{(=l) Median Crossing ((=)) Incorrect Use of' Entrance Ramp Separation Strip Crossing Incorrect Use of' Exit Ramp

(--- Nose'Crqssing (---) Entrance where No Entrance Ramp Exists (- Crossing Entire Freeway System (-) Exit Where No Exit Ramp Exists (- Unattended Vehicle on Shoulder (=) Wrong Way on Frontage Road (-) Parking on Median ( · ) Animal Crosstng (-) Hitch-Hiking (-) Loading or Unloading Passengers ( ) other: ---

6. FREQUENCY OF VIOLATION: (Estimate the number of' violations per week if' possible:

7.

8.

T---~~~~~-------------If' not, check appropriate block.) ( ) Very Of'ten (-) Occassionally (=) Of'ten (=) Seldom

PURPOSE OF VIOLATION: (-) "Uu Turn (-) Leisure Stop ~ ) Business Stop _) Emergency Stop

CAUSE OF VIOLATION~

(-) (-) (-) r)

(-) No Ramp (-.-) (-) No Grade Separation (-)

Access to Home, Farm, or Business Access f'rom Home, Farm, or Business Access ~o or f'rom New Development other: ________________________ __

Most Convenient Route Frontage Road Ends End of' Corrective Measure (-) No Frontage Road (=)

(-) Other: ___________________________ ~--------------------

(~so describe and show on skematic sheet geometric f'actors contributing to the violation in addition to those above. Describe what proper route if' any is available to traf'f'ic and estimate the additional time and distance required. Use the dashed lines to show the proper route on the skematic sheet.)

ADDITIONAL TIME ____________ ADDITIONAL DISTANCE ________ _

(Over)

FIGURE 4

DATA COLLECTION FORM (CONTINUED)

9. DURATION:OF VIOLATION: (Estimate the time required to complete the violation . maneuvel;' . ) (-) less than 5 minutes (} 5 to 15 minutes (===) 15 minutes to l hour

l hour to 5 hours over 5 hours variable

10. SEVERITY OF VIOLATION: (===) Very Dangerous <=:=) Relatively Safe

11. PRESENCE OF VIOLATIONS: (Estimate how long the violation has existed.and note if it is of a temporary nature due to roadside construction, etc ) (-)Since highway opened in--.,.,...,.---------___.-------:::~~:;--(-) Temporary.for mon. s (--) Other: (===) Since -co_r_r_e_c~t~i-v-e~m~e-a_s_ur~·e-w~a-s~p~l~a-c-e~d.---------------------

12. CORRECTIVE MEASURES: (Describe the effectiveness of corrective measures.used in the past.)

(-) (-) Inef:fecti~e (-~ Signs Effective (- Posts with Barrier Cable (-) Effective (-)'Ineffective (-) Ditches (-) Effective (-) Ineffective (-~ Curbs. (-) Effective (-) Ineffective (- Chain Line Fences (-) Effective (-) Ineffective (-) Guard Fences (-) Effective (-) Ineffective (-~ None (-) Effective (-. ~ Ineffective c- Guard Posts (-) Effective (- Ineffective <=:=> Other: <=:=> Effective <=:=> Ineffective

(De;;cribe any suggested or anticipated measures for elimination of this violation.)

13. :(las this 'violation peen eliminated?

14. ENFORCEMENT: (=) High

(Rate enforcement level in this vicinity.) (=) Low (=) Medium

15. ACCIDENT ·HISTORY: (Describe a:nd sketch on plan or skel)lati.c sheet any accidents al_!his point which were the result of this violation.) ( ) None Reported .·

(~) ~istory: ____ ~· --------------------------------------------------~

16. SKETCH: (Illustrate the .conditions described in items 5, 8·1 and 12 above on approximately 1" = 200' skematic sheet. Ground photos should· be provided when justified by the severity of the violation.) Note profile ~f violation area as: (-) Relatively Flat (===)·Other: (Sketch cross section below)

17. VOLUME: (Give average daily traffic on controlled access facility.) AJ5T = --------------------------------

For a better understanding, many of the types of violations are illustrated in Figures 6 through 9. Types of violations in addition to those illustrated were: an unattended vehicle on the shoulder, park-ing on the medianu hitch-hiking, animal crossing 8 loading and unload­ing passengers, and the general group cataloged as "other." The classi­fication "other" was used for violations which did not have enough occur­rences to be considered as an individual type of violation. A list of all of the types of violations is given in Figure 13. Aerial photographs of some of the types of access violations existing in June, 1964, are shown in Figures 10, 11, and 12. While taking the aerial photographs~ the photographer noted a blanket salesman selling his goods within the inter­state right-of-way. A photo of this appears in Figure 11.

Extent and Causes of Access Violations

The extent or frequency of the types of access violation locations is shown in Figure 13 8 which gives both the number of violation loca­tions and the percent of all violation locations. The total number of violation locations reported was 986 making the percent for each type roughly one-tenth of the number of violation locations. The 9 86 vio­lation locations occurred over approximately 770 miles of freeway, a ratio of 1 o 3 access violation locations per mile of freeway. Twenty­five percent of these violation locations occurred on the 130 miles of urban freeway studied, a ratio of 1. 9 access violation locations per mile of urban freeway. The remainder of the violation locations occurred on 640 miles of rural freeway, a ratio of 0.85 access violation loca­tions per mile of rural freeway.

Although there were twenty-eight different types of violations, five types were predominant which accounted for 63.2% of the violation loca­tions reported. The predominant or major types of access violations were:

1. Separation strip crossing, exit where no exit ramp exists.

2. Median eros sing.

3 o Separation strip crossing u entrance where no entrance ramp exists.

4. Unattended vehicle on shoulder.

5. Crossing entire freeway system.

--8-

] v

FRONTAGE ROAD ENTRANCE RAMP -...,.___.,~

iE~r=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~i~=~=~=m~=~=1=H~l~l!:~=~;~l~f.::J~=~===~=~=~=~~=l=====~t===l===~=t~J=~===~===~:~=~=~=====~=:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::=:i:i:l::=l=l===~=1=:\:::::::v====~===============================================~====

FREEWAY LANES

• m~1HH{W~mmmm{JHlm.mmmmnmmmmtmmmmmmtmmmmm~mmgHili~iHWmmmmmmmmmm~mmmmmmmmm~mmmmmmmmwmmmmmW~H~mmmnnm~mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ..

FREEWAY LANES ...

::::::};1:::~r:::m::::::::::::~1~il:i!:l:ij~ff~i~:-~i~ji!i\illl\\!l!~~[~.l!\11\l\~'!:·i\'i .. lli\\l\\i\!~li!.li\i1\lii\.1.::::!.\i,J'i!.~lll~~:~~~~-'!!''l··:.!.l·!!!!!i·~~~~~,'ll,i.l·::· .... ·.·:: ===========:====(==================m=:::====================,===================================,=====,==========N/==,=====,======================:=============================;=:=:=:=:;:===========::::;::::,===============================================

EXIT RAMP MEDIAN FRONTAGE ROAD

FREEWAY DEFINITIONS

FIGURE 5

• CROSSING ENTIRE • SEPARATION STRIP • MEDIAN CROSSING FREEWAY SYSTEM CROSSING • SEPARATION STRIP CROSSING

• ENTRANCE WHERE NO • ENTRANCE WHERE NO ENTRANCE RAMP E.XISTS

ENTRANCE RAMP EXISTS

:l:l:l:l:l~l:~:l:l:l:l:l:l:~ll:l!l!l:H~!Hiljll!l(!)l:lllll!ll~l~il!lH:~::::::::::::::l:ljl:l:l:l:l:l:l:l:l:l:l:l:l:~:l:l!i!l!l!tl!lt!l!lH!~1~lll~!l!l!l!lH!;:lil!l:l:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:::~:~::::::::::lll~ll~lll:l:l:)ll!llll!lllllln~lllll~llll!l)l!i!l!lnll

li!~'!'i!.!,'i1'!1~1i~~~~liii~I::J:~il1i.l'i~'ilillffii'~.·l,l!i~·i'l':":1i·JI!'~ lij!';lll·l·il·l'l·ll·l!i! .. ';'!'i'i'l ,j J!ji··~l.llii!l1i\i;l!lil!i:ji~''l'~i!i!ll~!li!l ::Jl.il~!l!!!i'll~!·l'l~·i!i ~!i. !ll!i!1,1!1!111'11.1.1~1~~·!111·'.ijlll.'li'i~ii.'i'ji~'!Ji:··j .. ~. -~ FREEWAY LANES

jtHlHHlHWilnii,HiHHWH\,iW!ii?WHW!WWWHi(H!HlHHHHHHHfi!1WtHHtti?lHHHWWWiti!l!WHHWWWW!mlWHHHHHHWW}HB!JWlHWW@mm!iHHH!i~WtHWjH!?nH!WIHWH}H}HHHmi@

FREEWAY LANES •

··m~l··,l!\i:JI:·I1·'·1I:!i!l:llil.l'o'o'l~liill!~·l.·li.lilli'olll~.o,o,!ll!lill.~l:·:l !llii:l'o'olll·lillllll·l'olll:~::·:o,.:lll!ij\I.II!WI:.!Ill .. l· .. l:llillll·l.l~.l~·.l.;;~.:~l~l·l~·~I~OO~··~I·IIi~:.lll~'o·:~~~~~,:II!I!'OOil~l!l··l:i:~,::J,I·:i·;l~ :;W~~·~!HH~H~~H~~~~~~~H~H~~t~H~~~~~H~~~:~:~:~.:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:WHH;~;~nTmW~.H;m;~;~;·mmWH~~WHH~~~;~HI~~~~~~~~:~:·~:;;;:.~:~:~:;:;:.~:;:~:~.:~:~:~:~:;:~:~:;:;~;:~:·~~;:;:~;;:H~;;:;~;~~·;;~~~~~~~IT11n:~:~:~:~:~:;:~:~:;:H~:HH~;~;H~H·H~HHH~;~;~;~~~;I~H;;HHH~H

•.MEDIAN CROSSING • SEPARATION STRIP • MEDIAN CROSSING • SEPARA iiON STRIP CROSSING •ENTRANCE WHERE NO

CROSSING • E:XIT WHERE NO

• SEPARATION STRIP CROSSING • EXIT WHERE NO

ENTRANCE RAMP EXISTS EXIT RAMP EXISTS EXIT RAMP EXISTS • EXIT WHERE NO EXIT RAMP E·XISTS

TYPES OF ACCES·S VIOLATIONS

FIGURE· 6

_., ttl

'1l

•INCORRECT USE OF ENTRANCE RAMP

• EXIT WHERE NO EXIT RAMP EXISTS

J'.

• NOSE CROSSING •INCORRECT USE OF

ENTRANCE RAMP •EXIT WHERE NO EXIT

RAMP EXISTS

• NOSE CROSSING •INCORRECT USE OF

ENTRANCE RAMP

ll!:ji:!i!:'!::~!~:!·i::!l:li~l~lillil::ji!lli!i!ii]lllil![ijl]!i:!i,i!lil!ilili!lilli::il!iili!!~ .. ! .. ll:!.ilii::j::l·il!li.·ll!il:,::::ll!l~!li~l~1!~.1i:i~ ~~l!.lili!i~!i]':i! FREEWAY LANES

wmm~m~mmm~rmmm)mm~m~w~nmmm~m~1tmHlmmmmmmw~mmm~mmm~mmmmmmmmmmnmmm}mmmmmmmmmmmm~mmm~l@~~~~mH~~~}~~~~mmm~~mmmm~m~~mrmmmm~~mmm~~m~~ll FREEWAY LANES

lill[~'ll' .. lltJ:.!i··~~··.·~·.·.ll·~~~~~.~~~~~~~.: .. ll:lil~l·l.li·~i~·.:~.l~ll:l:.~lll:l· .. ~·~:l'il.·l·l~:l:~~~:·I···L ~~~~~··l~:~.i~j~~ :~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:}:~:~:~:~~~:i~~~~~:~~~;~:~:~Ji~;~;~~}:~:;:;:;:~:;:~:~:!:~:1:~:~:~:~:~:~;~:~:~ ~:~:~:~:~:~:~~:~6~~~:~2~8~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~:~\:;:~:~:~:~:~:;;~;~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:;:~:~:~:~~~~1~~6§i:~~~8~~~~~~;~?~:~;~;~;~;:{

EXIT RAMP •INCORRECT USE OF •INCORRECT USE OF e ENTRANCE WHERE NO EXIT RAMP EXIT RAMP

ENTRANCE RAMP EXISTS • ENTRANCE WHERE NO ENTRANCE RAMP EXISTS

TYPES OF ACCESS VIOLATIONS

FIGURE 7

----

{J')

• MEDIAN CROSSING •INCORRECT USE OF

ENTRANCE RAMP •EXIT WHERE NO EXIT

RAMP EXISTS

• NOSE CROSSING. •INCORRECT USE OF

ENTRANCE RAMP • WRONG WAY ON

FRONTAGE ROAD

•WRONG WAY ON FRONTAGE ROAD

HHH;H~H;~~;~;.~~H;~~~tHH~;~~~~~~~~HH:;:~:~~=~~~=~:~:~:~:~:~:·~=~d:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:.~:~·:i:~:~~·~:~:~:~:l:~:::i:~:l:~:~:~:~·:~:~:~:~:~:.~:;:~:~:~.:~:,~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:;:~:~;~:~:~:~·:~:~:~:~:i:~:;:~:~:~::·:;::::·;:~:~:~:~:~:~:~~~=~=~=~~~~~~~;~~l~~~

l!'ii'i!~,::~::::!:l'll!li~l!:l!':lli!"ill!\,lii;!i!lili~llil:l:l··!llil!:j,j!lll~i!i!\l·~~ll!lil!l~!!l!~ill'~ii!l!ljjjililllll!l~.l::j,i,j'~~11:;:1il'!i\llil:l!l +--- FREEWAY LANES

m~m~mwn:Hfl~l1pmFmmrmmrrnmmlummmmm~:~lmlmmmlmlm:mmmm~mmmmmmnnlmmmmH//H/~~/l~l~l~H}nnmn~mmrmmmmnmm:mmmmmmm:mm~~~n:~l>H~?l~ -i!i'l',i·,i·li,~i-,!l,,\'!i,·!~llllll':''i:llll~~-'11'::111.1.1~;'111:1:1~111111!.~ ~~~~~.~~~~~-~~00~1~:[!~~~~i~::l:,·i:l;~l!·::l:l~ililil~~~ · :~:;:;:~:;·:;:~:~:~:~:~:;;~;i;~;~;~;~;~;~;~;~~;;;~;~;~;;;;;;;;;·~~~;;;~;~~.i~~;~~~~~~~~I~~~~~~.;~~~~~~:~:?:~:~:I:~:~:}:~;~:~:~:~:~:~:~g:~:;:~:~:i:~:~:~:~:l:;:~:~:~~~:~:~:~:i.:~:;:;:;:;:~:~:;:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~;~;~~;;.~;~;~~~;~;~;~~:;~

(;t 4:

• MEDIAN CROSSING •INCORRECT USE OF

EXIT RAMP •ENTRANCE WHERE NO

ENTRANCE RAMP EXISTS

• NOSE CROSSING •INCORRECT USE OF

EXIT RAMP •WRONG WAY ON

FRONTAGE ROAD

TYPES OF ACCESS VI.OLAT IONS

FIGURE 8

• WRONG WAY ON

FRONTAGE ROAD

:.~ ',l_l

• MEDIAN CROSSING

•ENTRANCE WHERE NO ENTRANCE RAMP EXISTS

j\

• ENTRANCE WHERE NO ENTRANCE RAMP EXISTS

;:::::::::::;:{:;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::;:::::~:::::::::::;:;:::::::::;:;:::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:~:::::::::::::::::;:::::::::::::::·:::::::::::::::jt=:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;::::::::::::;(:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:

.. 4 FREEWAY LANES

m~mmmmmmm~mmmmtmmt~~mmm~mmirtt~rmmmmmmmmm~~mmmmmmmmmmmm]~mm~mmm~~~mmmmmm~m~ml~WlW~~~~~~~~1~~u~~~~~~~~~~~[~~~~~~!!~Q~!!~[[~~!t1m[mm~mmmmm}~j •

\ FREEWAY LANES

=~=~=~=h~=~=~===~=~=~===~===m=1=====1=~=1=1=1=l=1=1===.1========~==l=l=l=l=====l=l=l===l===============================================================·============r====================:=========================T===============,===========================

•MEDIAN CROSSING

• EXIT WHERE NO EXIT RAMP EXISTS

• EXIT .WHERE NO EXIT RAMP EXISTS

TYPES OF ACCESS VIOLATIONS

FIGURE 9

• MEDIA~ CROS~ING

q;

• SEPARATION STRIP CROSSING

• EXIT WHERE NO EXIT RAMP EXISTS.

• SEPARATION STRIP CROSSING

• ENTRANCE WHERE NO RAMP EXISTS.

• SEPARATION STRIP CROSSING

• ENTRANCE WHERE NO RAMP EXISTS.

• NOSE CROSSING

• INCORRECT USE OF ENTRANCE RAMP.

TYPES OF ACCESS VIOLATIONS

FIGURE 10

-, ..

- ----------------------,

• UNATTENDED VEHICLE ON SHOULDER.

• NOSE CROSSING

• INCORRECT USE OF EXIT RAMP.

• ENTRANCE WHERE NO ENTRANCE RAMP EXISTS.

• LOADING OR UNLOADING PASSENGER.

• BLANKET SALES ON RIGHT OF WAY.

TYPES OF ACCESS VIOLATIONS

FIGURE 11

A • NOSE CROSSING

• INCORRECT USE OF EXIT RAMP

• ENTRANCE WHERE NO ENTRANCE RAMP EXISTS.

B

• NOSE CROSSING

• INCORRECT USE OF ENTRANCE RAMP.

• EXIT WHERE NO EXIT RAMP EXISTS.

• MEDIAN CROSSING

A • ENTRANCE WHERE NO

ENTRANCE RAMP EXISTS.

B

• UNATTENDED VEHICLE ON SHOULDER.

c • EXIT WHERE NO EXIT RAMP

EXISTS.

• HITCH -HIKING

TYPES OF ACCESS VIOLATIONS

FIGURE 12

:'l C/)

'" rt. r 0)

FIGURE 13

TABLE OF THE FREQUENCY OF TYPES OF VIOLATION LOCATIONS

----

NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT OF OF OF OF

TYPE OF VIOLATION VIOLATION VIOLATION TYPE OF VIOLATION VIOLATION VIOLATION LOCATIONS LOCATIONS LOCATIONS LOCATIONS,·

MEDIAN CROSSING 18o 18.2 CROSSING ENTIRE FREEWAY SYSTEM 58 5-9

MEDIAN .. CROSSING MEDIAN CROSSING SEPARATION STRIP CROSSING 35 3.6 INCORRECT USE OF ENTRANCE RAMP 9 0.9 ENTRANCE WHERE NO ENTRANCE RAMP EXISTS EXIT 1-lHERE NO EXIT RAMP EXISTS

i

MEDIAN CROSSING MEDIAN CROSSING SEPARATION STRIP CROSSING 48 4.9 INCORRECT USE OF EXIT RAMP 4 0.4 EXIT WHERE NO EXIT RAMP EXISTS ENTRANCE vlHERE NO ENTRANCE RAMP EXISTS

NOSE CROSSING NOSE CROSSING INCORRECT USE OF ENTRANCE RAMP 3 0.3 INCORRECT USE OF ENTRANCE RAMP 4o 4.1 WRONG WAY ON FRONTAGE ROAD EXIT t'IHERE NO EXIT RAMP EXISTS

NOSE CROSSING NOSE CROSSING ~CORRECT USE OF EXIT RAMP 5 0.5 INCORRECT USE OF EXIT. RAMP 37 3.8 WRONG WAY ON FRONTAGE- ROAD ENTRANCE WHERE NO ENTRANCE RAMP EXISTS

MEDIAN CROSSING NOSE CROSSING ENTRANCE WHERE NO ENTRANCE RAMP EXISTS 5 0.5 INCORRECT USE OF ENTRANCE RAMP 8 0.8

MEDIAN CROSSING NOSE CROSSING EXIT WHERE NO EXIT RAMP EXISTS 8 0.8 INCORRECT USE OF EXIT RAMP 12 1.2

SEPARATION STRIP CROSSING INCORRECT USE OF ENTRANCE RAMP EXIT WHERE NO EXIT RAMP EXISTS 204 20.7 EXIT WHERE NO EXIT RAMP EXISTS 30 3.0

SEPARATION STRIP CROSSING INCORRECT USE OF EXIT RAMP ENTRANCE WHERE NO ENTRANCE RAMP EXISTS 112 ll.4 ENTRANCE WHERE NO ENTRANCE RAMP EXISTS 20 2.0

UNATTENDED VEHICLE. ON SHOULDER 68 'f.O ME:DIAN CROSSING SEPARATION STRIP CROSSING

PARKING ON .MEDIAN 6 0.6 ENTRANCE WHERE NO ENTRANCE RAMP EXISTS 10 1.0 EXIT WHERE NO EXIT RAMP EXISTS

HITCH-HIKING 2 0.2

ENTRANCE WllERE NO ENTRANCE RAMP EXISTS 21 2.1 ANIMAL CROSSING '2 0.2

EXIT WHERE NO EXIT RAMP EXISTS 20 2.0 LOADING OR UNLOADING PASSENGERS 0 o.o

l WRONG WAY ON FRONTAGE ROAD 19 1.9 OTHER 22 2.2

TOTAL 986 100.0

The freq11ency,of tl,lese types of violations and their respective . ~ . -

percentages are- shown in Figure 14. The type- of violation, loading or unloading passengers I was not marked as one occurring in the state I yet it was .included because the author noted and photographed this

· taking place on a Houston freeway. It was believed that a continuous surveillance method of data collection, rather than the once-over method used, would indicate the frequency of this type of violation. (See the

· photograph in Figure 11 of this type of violation.)

The number ·of violation locations shown in the Table of the Fre­quency of Types of Violation Locations, does not take into account how often each violation was repeated. These data were required to deter­mine the true extent of access violations. Since data were collected on a one-time basis, the freqtfency of each violation was estimated by the personnel completing the questionnaire in the general terms of sel­dom, occasionally, often or very often. -This estimation was shown in the graph of the Extent of the Frequency of Access Violations (Figure 15). Noting that "often" was marked for 44 percent of the violation locations and that "very often" was marked for 24 percent of the violation loca­tions, it may be assumed that the true extent of access violations was several times greater than the total number of the types of violation locations reported (986).

The primary cause of access violations was found to be that the violation route was the most convenient route. This. generally resulted from one of the following two conditions:

- 1. There was no ramp available.

2. There wa-s no grade separation available.

Figure 16 shows the frequency of the cause qf access violations. Since two causes could be marked on the questionnaire for each viola­~ion, the sum of the percentages for all causes was greater than 100 percent.

The greatest cause of violations was found to be that the viola­tion route was the most convenient route. This cause of violation was indic~ted for over 52 percent of the violation locations.

The curve in Figure 17 shows that 35 percent of the violation lqca­tions with most convenient route marked as a cause, required no addi­tional distance to. go the legal route. (l'Jo additional distance to go the

(•:.;: 0\

35 350

30 300

25 250 (/)

z 0

~ 0 0 ...J

~ 20 200 ~· ...J 0 > .... 0 1- 15 150 z ..... 0 0: ..... 0..

101- I I I I I I I ~100

5 50

0 I 0 •CROSSING ENTIRE

FREEWAY SYSTEM •UNATTENDED

VEHICLE ON SHOULDER

~SEPARATION STRIP CROSSING

•ENTRANCE WHERE NO ENTRANCE RAMP EXISTS

•MEDIAN CROSSING

TYPES OF VIOLATIONS

•SEPARATION STRIP CROSSING

•EXIT WHERE NO EXIT RAMP EXISTS

•ALL REMAINING TYPES OF VIOLATIONS

FREQUENCY OF MAJOR TYPES OF VIOLATIONS

FIGURE 14

(!1

(/)

z 2 1-<1: 0 0 ...J

z 0

~ ...J 2 > u. 0 0: ..... m ::E :::1 z

45 450

10 100

5 50

0 0 SELDOM OCCASIONALLY OFTEN VERY OFTEN

FREQUENCY OF VIOLATION

EXTENT OF THE FREQUENCY OF VIOLATIONS FIGURE 15

.if .'lc\

\'"·! •1·

rn z 0 1-

60

~50 0 -' z 0 l-et 40 -' 0

> LL. 0

1- 30 z ILl (.)

0:: ILl a.

20

10

0 NO RAMP NO GRADE

SEPARATION

I NO FRONTAGE

ROAD

I OTHER

'

MOST CONVENIENT

ROUTE

CAUSES OF VIOLATIONS

I FRONTAGE

ROAD ENDS

FREQUENCY OF CAUSES OF VIOLATIONS

FIGURE 16

II END OF

CORRECTIVE MEASURE

600

500 ~ 0 l­et (.)

0 -'

400 ~ l­et -' 0

> LL.

300 0

200

100

0

0:: ILl m ::::'!: ::::> z

' ,,

(/) z 0 ;::: <l (.)

9

z 0

fi ...J Q

·>

LL. 0

1-z w (.) a::: w a.

w > 1-<l ...J ::::> ~ ::::> (.)

100

80

60

50

.. · 2 3 4 5 6 7 ADDITIONAL DISTANCE (MILES)

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ADDITIONAL DISTANCE AND CAUSE , MOST CONVENIENT ROUTE

FIGURE 17

legal route meant that the violator could have exited from the freeway before reaching thi~ p9int, driven the remainder of the distance on the frontage road, and traveled no farther than was traveled in the route with the violation.)

Seventy percent of the violation locations required an additional distance of one mile or less to go the legal route. This seemed to leave the freeway def)igner with little opgortunity to design freeways to eliminate this cause of violation, since only 30 percent of the viola­tions locations could be eliminated with ramps 1 interchanges, etc. , spaced at one-mile intervals. At best, the designer would only be able to design corrective measures to enforce the elimination of violation locations for this cause.

Effective.ness of Corrective Measures

The frequency of the use of the different types of corrective measures was determ!ned from the opinions of the field personnel as found in the data collection forms. These frequencies are plotted as bar graphs under the titling Frequenc}' of Corrective Measures in Figure 18. No~e that the sum of the percentages for the bars doesn•t equal 100 p~rcent since up to three corrective measures could be marked for one violation.

Determining the .effectiveness of these corrective measures was the third objective of this project. This is shown in Figure 18 as a graph titled Effectiveness of Corrective Measures~ This graph shows the per­centage that each corrective measure was rated as effective and ineffec­tive. It is interesting to note that the corrective measure signs were in­effective more often than effective, 78 percent versus 22 percent. Curbs o

chain·H: .. nk fe.nces, and··posts with barrier cable showed a Vf?ry high effec­tiveness ratio· .. It should be noted from the Frequency .of Corrective Measures graph (Figur·e 18) that the sample size for curbs and chain link fences was very small.'

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Since this project was a pilot study on the subject of access viola­tions, the following adaitional results are presented to furnish a more complete background. ·

-23-

1-z ILl 0 a:: ILl a.. 4

2

en z 30 0 1-<( 0 0 25 ..J

z 0 1-<(

20 ..J 0 >

15 u. 0

1- 10 z ILl 0 a:: ILl

5 a..

SIGNS

[=:J EFFECTIVE CONTROL MEASURE ~ INEFFECTIVE CON;TROL MEASURE .·•

POST DITCHES CURBS CHAIN GUARD NONE OTHER GUARD WITH LINK FENCE POST

BARRIER FENCE CABLE

CORRECTIVE MEASURES

EFFECTIVENESS OF CORRECTIVE MEASURES· (OPINIONS OF FIELD. PERSONNEL) ,

300

250

200

150

100

50

0,L_ __ _LL---~L---~--~LL---L~--~L---LL--~LL--~Q

SIGNS POSTS DITCHES CURBS CHAIN GUARD NONE OTHER GUARD. WITH LINK FENCE POSTS

BARRIER FENCE CABLE

CORRECTIVE MEASURES

FREQUENCY OF CORRECTIVE MEASURES

FIGURE 18

en z 0 1-<( 0 0 ..J

z 0 1-<( ..J 0 > u. 0··

a:: ILl m ::E ~ z

'·"

Types of Access Violators

Ther access violator was cataloged into three types: pedestrian, vehicle, and animal since the type 11 0ther 11 was not marked on any questionnaire. The frequency of Violations by Violator graph {Appen­dix B) showed the frequency of each of the types of violators with the vehicle accounting for 9 4 percent. The Frequency of Violations by a Specific Group graph {Appendix B) showed that in 10 percent of the violation locations, a specific group was involved? These groups included school children, power companies, telephone companies, roadside advertising companies, and particular business firms. There was a possibility that these violation locations could be eliminated by contacting these groups, pointing out the proper route, noting the severity of the violation, and requesting their help in eliminating the violation. This procedure was effective ·in eliminating one violation in the Ft. Worth area.

Purposes of Access Violations

The Frequency of the Purpose of Violations is shown in Appendix C. This graph shows the major purposes for access violations to be:

1 G Egress from the freeway facility.

2. Access to the freeway facility.

3 • A change of direction on the freeway facility.

These purposes substantiated the three major types of violations which are shown in the graph of the Frequency of the Major Type of Violations (Figure 14).

Average Daily Traffic

The graph iri Appendix 0..:.1 of the Frequency of Average Daily Traffic shows that 46 percent of the violation locations occurred on facilities with an average daily traffic of 5, 00 0 to 9 ~ 9 9 9 vehicles • It should be noted that the sum of percentages of the bar graphs does not equal 100 percent because 163 (16. 5 percent) of the questionnaires did not furnish a figure for average daily traffic. Only three violations were reported with an average daily traffic of greater than 3 0, 0 0 0 vehicles.

-25-

The three major types of violations are corre1ated·with average daily traffic in the graph in Appendix D-2. It. should,be noted that approximately 60 percent of the violation locations for each of the major causes took place on a facility with an average daily traffic of less than 6, 000 vehicles.

Additi?nal Distance to Go the Legal Route

The graph of the Relationship Between Additional Distance and All Violations (Appendix E) shows that 3 5 percent of the violation locations require no additional time to go the legal route, Accord­ing to this graph u eighty percent of the violation locations occurred

., when the additional time required to go the legal route· was less than five minutes.

Severity of Violations

The frequency of the severity of violations is shown in the graph in Appendix G-1.. Dangerous was marked for almost 50 percent of the violation locations. An attempt was made to show that a greater per­centage of relatively safe violations would occur than dangerous viola­tions for the same additional time to go the legal route. The graph {Appendix G-2) of the ·Relationship between the Additional Time and · Severity of Violation did not substantiate this hypothesis. Therefore 1

time did not appear to·be the basis for determining whether the average driver would violate or go the legal route"

Next, an attempt-was made to show that distance was this parameter. The graph of the Relationship between Additional Distance and Severity of Violation {Appendix G...:3) shows that a greater percentage of relatively safe violations occurrerd than dangerous and very dangerous when the additional distance was between one-half mile and two miles" Up to one­half mile u there was practically no difference in the curves 1 a,nd for dis­tances further than two miles 1 a greater percentage of dangerous· and very danger,o'us violations occurred than relatively safe violations. Note .l that this comparison was based onttire percentages and not on the quantities.

Presence of Violations

The graph in Appendix H-1 illustrates the frequency of the presence of violation locations~ The percentages of the four bar grarphs did not

-26-

add up to 100 percent since all questionnaires were not completed for this question. Over 80 percent of the violations had existed since the facility opened. ,

The graph of the Number of Existing Violation Locations Begi.nning in Past Years (Appendix H-2) shows the number of violations beginning on new facilities as they were opened to traffic for each of the past twelve years. On the same page, the graph of the cumulative number of these violation locations shows that these numbered over three hun­dred. The three hundred in existence should have totaled the eight hun­dred shown in the 'graph, Frequency of Presence of Violation Locations, in Appendix H-1. This did not result because the personnel completing the que stionncHre failed to fill in the blank, when the highway opened 8

yet realized that the violation location had been used since the high­way O!Jened, and marked this box but left the year blank.

Freeway Areas

The graph of the Frequency of Freeway Areas (Appendix I) showed that 75 percent of the violation locations reported occurred on rural freeway facilities and 25 percent on urban freeway facilities. This was anticipated for three reasons: (1) the heavy volumes on urban freeways tend to prevent violations, (2) many urban freeways have barrier curbs on frontage roads and a guard rail down the median which prevent viola­tions, and (3) approximately 130 miJes of urban freeways were studied in comparison with approximately 640 miles of rural freeways. Yet, there were 1. 9 access violation locations per mile of urban freeway while there were 0.85 access violation locations per mile of rural free­way.

Accident History

The Frequency of Accident History graph (Appendix I) showed that a very small number of accidents have been attributed to access violations. It should be noted, however 8 that one fatality resulted from an access violation accident.

Profile

The graph of the Frequency of Profile (Appendix I) indicates that over 9 0 percent of the access violation locations occurred on relatively flat terrain.

-27-

Enforcement

The Frequency of Enforcement Ratings graph (Appendix I) illustrates the fact that the enforcement level for access violations was generally low. In less than twenty-five instances the enfprcement level was rated as high.

Duration of Violation

The graph of the Frequency of Duration of Violation (Appendix J) shows that at 86 percent of the violation locations, less than five minutes was required for the execution of the violation mcmeuver. Since data were not collected using a continuous observation method, a breakdown of less than five minutes was impossible.

GONG LUSIONS

The data were collected on a one-time basis on approximately 770 miles of freeway which included all Interstate Highways within the state. The conclusions based on the study performed were as follows:

1. A total of twenty-eight separate types of access violations were observed and defined.

2 0 A total of 986 access violation locations were observed on approximately 770 miles of Interstate Highways, a ratio of 1. 3 access violation locations per mile of freeway. Twenty-five percent of these vi~Jation locations occurred on the 130 miles of urban fr~eway studied, a ratio of 1. 9 access violation locations per mile of urban freeway. The remainder of the violation locations occurred on 6 40 miles of rural freeway, a ratio of 0. 85 access violation locations per mile of rural freeway.

"'f~';

3. Five types of access violations accounted for 622 or 63.5 percent of the 986 observed access violation locations. These most prev~'lent types were found to be:

a. Separation strip crossing, exit where no exit ramp exists--204 violations--20. 7 percent.

b. M,edian crossing--180 violations--18.2 percent.

co Separation strip crossing, entrance where no entrance ramp exists--112 violations--11. 4 percent.

-28-

d. Unattended vehicle on shoulder--68 violations--?. 0 percent.

e. Crossing entire freeway system--58 violations--5. 9 percent.

4. The primary cause of access violations was found to be that the violation route was the most convenient. This cause was indicated in over 52 percent of the violations.

5. Prohibitive signs were rated ineffective as corrective m'easures in 78 percent of the cases.

6. Curbs, chain-link fences, and posts with barrier cable · had a very high degree of effectiveness.

7. Access violators were cataloged as: (1) pedestrian, (2) vehicle, and (3) animal. Of these three, vehicles accounted for 9 4 percent of the access violators.

8. Approximately 60 percent of the observed violations took place on facilities with an average daily traffic of lesS than 6 1000 vehicles.

9. The study indicated an extreme desire on the part of the motorist to make direct movements on-'t6 and off-of the freeway.

10. The severity of violations were classed as relatively safe. dangerous, and very dangerous. The persons reporting the data indicated the following:

a. Relatively safe--24 percent of the violation locations.

b. Dangerous--49 percent of the violation locations.

c. Very dangerous--2 7 percent of the violation locations.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations for Additionas Studies

One Qf the Texas Highway Department Dt stricts, when returning their data collection forms, noted that the frequency of innocent wrong way vi.ola­tions on exit ramps could not be ascertai.ned by the once-over method of

-29-

data collectionu since no tracks were left and the violation was infre­quent. It was recommended that data be collected on a surveillance method to determine the frequency and extent of this type of violation. Possibly a detection device could be designed to collect these data. If the data show the extent and severity of this type of violation to be sig­ni!iicant, studies should be undertaken to determine the best methods to eliminate this type of violation.

The extent and severity of access violailons shown in this report suggested additional studies on this subject. These_ studies should determine:

1. Geometric design changes in freeway facili.ties which will coincide more closely with drivers o desires. The closer the designer can come to meeting an drivers" desires, the greater the number of violations he -will eliminate before they ever occur.

2. The most feasible control measure to be used in eliminating violations now existing on free~y facilities. Factors to be considered should be:

a. Would any control measure be more of a hazard than the benefit of eliminating the access violations? The report "The Significance and Nature of Vehicle Encroachment on Medians of Divided Hig,hways" 2 by John W. Hutchinson furnished encroachment rates for the highways he studied. He also notes accident experience with obstacles in the median. Studies of thi.s type m_ust be accomplished to answer this question.

b. What would be the severity of the accidentlff the control measure were run into? The most prevalent method/presently used in eliminating violations i.n Texas is wooden posts with barri.er cable running between posts. This corrective measure should be tested to determine how the cable reacts when

··'·'·>, broken during an accident. Does the cable drop to the ground or whi.p through the air? Possibly another· type of post or a smaller wooden post should be used for corrective measures to reduce the severity of any ·accidents in which these posts are hit. Actual crash tests on these correcti.ve measures can answer these questions.

-30-

c. Would the night visibility of the control measure be adequate? The anticipated problem here is the cable strung between posts. Presently, at some locations in Texas, one reflector is attached to the cable cen­tered between the posts·. Studies should be conducted to determine if these are adequate to prevent drivers from unknowingly attempting to drive through the cable at night.

d. The need for crossovers for use by police, ambulances o

a:nd maintenance vehicles. One method presently used in Maryland for limiting crossover usage to emergency vehicles is a radio operated median gate. 3 Mr. Hutchinson states in his report2 that agencies requiring emergency access across the median where posts and barrier cables were in place were instructed to carry bolt cutters for the purpose of cut­ting the barrier cable when necessary. Studies would be un­dertaken to determine the best method of providing this access.

3. The control measures to be included in the original design and construction to prevent violations that cannot be eli­minated through geometric design changes.

-31-

APPENDIX

-32-

,.

Col. l-2 Col. 3-4 Col. 5 Col. 7-8 Col. 10-16

Col. l8 Col. 20-22

Col. 24

Col. 25 Col. 27-30

APPENDIX A-1

CODE OF DATA COLLECTION FORM

LAST TWO DIGITS OF TTI PROJECT NUMBER 65=PR()JECT 1.065 NUMBER OF MONTH DATA WAS COLLECTED 3=MARCH 4=APRIL LAST DIGIT OF YEAR DATA WAS COLLECTED 4=1964 TEXAS HIGHwAY DEPARTMENT DISTRICT NUMBER VIOLATION NUMBER FOR EACH DISTRICT (LETTERS PRECE,DING NUMBERS

INDICATE THAT THE DISTRICT HAD MORE THAN ONE NUMBER l). URBAN OR RlTRAL URBAN=l RURAL--2 LOCATION TO NEAREST ACCESS IN TENTHS OF A MILE

B,LANK=UNKNOWN OR DOES NOT APPLY VIOLATOR li=PEDESTBI.AN 3=ANIMAL

2= VEHICLE 4=0THER SPECIF.IC GROUP OF VIOLATOR l=NO SPECIFIC GROUP 2=SPECIFIC GROUP TYPE OF VIOLATION (UP TO FOUR MAY BE CHECKED FOR ONE VIOLATION)

A=MEDIAN CROSSING I=INCORRECT USE OF ENTRANCE RAMP B=SEP.ARATION STRIP CROSSING J=INCORRECT USE OF EXIT RAMP C=NOSE CROSSING K=ENTRANCE WHERE NO ENTRANCE RAMP EXISTS D=CROSSING ENTIRE FREEWAY IFEXIT WHERE NO EXIT RAMP EXISTS

.SYSTEM JS=UNATTENDED VEHICLE ON M=WRONG WAY ON FRONTAGE ROAD

SHOULDER F=PARiaNG ON. MEDIAN N=ANIMAL CROSSING a.=;m;TCH.;.HIKING O=LOADING OR UNLOADING PASSENGERS H=OTHER

Col. 32 FREQUENCY OF VIOLATION l= VERY OFTEN 3=0CCASIONALLY 2=0FTEN 4=SELDOM

Col. 34 PURPOSE OF VIOLATION 1.= U TURN 5=ACCESS TO HOME, FARM,. OR BUSINESS 2,;.LEISURE STOP &;ACCESS FROM HOME,. FARM, OR BUSINESS 3='BUSINESS STOP 7=ACCESS TO OR FROM NEW DEVELOPMENT 4=EMERGENCY 8:0THER

Col. 36-37 CAUSE OF VIOLATION (UP TO TWO MAY BE CHECKED FOR ONE VIOLATION) l=NO RAMP 5=MOST CONVENIENT ROUTE 2=N0 GRADE SEPARA~ON 6=FRONT.AGE ROAD ENDS 3=NO FRONTAGE ROAD 7 =END OF CORRECTIVE MEASURE 4=0THER

Col. 39-4o ADDITIONAL TIME IN MINUTES REQUIRED FOR LEGAL ROUTE ZEROS=NO ADDITIONAL TIME REQUIRED B:r.A.NK=DOES NOT APPLY

Col.

Col.

Col.

Col.

Col.

Col.

Col.

Col.

Col. Col. Col. Col. Col.

42-44

46

48

50

5~ 55 58

53 56 59

64

66

68 70 72

74-78 80

APPENDIX A-2

CODE OF DATA COLLECTION FOBM (CON 1 T)

ADDITIONAL DISTANCE TO TENTHS OF A MILE REQUIRED FOR LEGAL ROUTE ZEROS=NO ADDITIONAL DISTANCE REQUIRED BLANK=DOES NOT APPLY

DURATION OF VIOLATION l=LESS THAN 5 MINUTES 4=1 HOUR TO 5 HOURS 2=5 TO l5 MINUTES 5•0VER 5 HOURS 3=15 MINUTES TO l HOUR 6=VARIABLE

SEVERITY OF VIOLATION l== VERY DANGEROUS 2=DANGEROUS 3=EELATIVELY SAFE

PRESENCE OF VIOLATION l==SINCE HIGHWAY OPENED. • • 3=0THER 2=TEMPORARY 4=SINCE CORRECTIVE MEASURE WAS PLACED

CORRECTIVE MEASURES O=U:NENOWN 5=CHAIN LINK FENCES l=SIGNS 6=GUARD FENCES 2=POSTS WITH BARRIER CABLE 7=NONE 3=DITCHES 8=0THER 4=CURBS 9=GUARD POSTS

EFFECTIVENESS OF CORRECTIVE MEASURES O=UN.KNOWN l=EFFECTIVE 2=INEFFECTIVE

SUGGESTED CORRECTIVE CONTROL MEASURES l=NO SUGGESTIONS 2=SUGGESTED CONTROL MEASURES

VIOLATION ELIMINATED OR STILL IN EXISTANCE l= VIOLATION STILL IN EXISTANCE 2= VIOLATION ELIMINATED

ENFORCEMENT LEVEL l=HIGH 2=LOW 3=MEDIUM ACCIDENT HISTORY l=NONE REPORTED 2=HISTORY PROFILE l=RELATIVELY FLAT 2=0THER A VE.RAGE DAILY TRAFFIC BLANKS=NO DATA SUBMITTED GROUND PHOTO l=NO PHOTO 2=FAIR PHOTO 3=GOOD PHOTO

(/)

z 0

~ 100 u 9 90 z 80 Q 70 ~ 5 60 Qso > LL. 40 0

30 .... r5 20 ~ 10 UJ ~-----; ~ OL_ ________ ~L_--------~~~======~

PEDESTRIAN VEHICLE VIOLATOR

ANIMAL

(/) z 0

1000 .... <(

900 u 0

800 ...J

700 z Q

600 !;t 500 ...J

Q

400 > LL.

300 0

200 0:: w

100 al ::!! :;)

0 z

FREQUENCY OF VIOLATIONS BY VIOLATOR

(/) z Q

~ 100 u 9 90~--------------~

80 z Q 70 lei 60 ...J Q 50 > LL. 40 0 30 ~ 20 w ~ 10 ~ 0~--------------~~--------------~

NO SPECIFIC GROUP SPECIFIC GROUP

SPECIFIC GROUP OF VIOLATOR

FREQUENCY OF VIOLATIONS SPECIFIC GROUP

APPENDIX B

BY

(/) z 0

1000 ~ 900 u

g 800 700 z

0

600 ~ 500 ...J

0

400 s: 300

LL. 0

200 0:: w

100 al ::!! :;)

0 z

A

35 350

30r I I -1300

(/) (/)

z z 0 0 1- 1-

<( <( 25 250 g 0

0 ...J ...J

z ~ Q i= 1- <( <(

200 6 ...J 20 0 > >

IJ... IJ... 0 0

1- 15 150 ffi z w ID 0 ::::2: a::: :::l w z Q.

10 100

5 50

"U" TURN LEISURE STOP BUSINESS STOP EMERGENCY STOP ACCESS TO ACCESS FROM ACCESS TO NEW OTHER HOME ETC. HOME ETC. DEVELOPMENT

PURPOSE OF VIOLATIONS

FREQUENCY OF PURPOSE OF VIOLATIONS

APPENDIX C

... d

70 700

60 _, 600

50 500 "' "' z z 0 0

~ 1-< 0 0 0 0 ...J ...J

~ 40 400 z 0 1- i= < < ...J ...J 0 0 > > "-"-0 0

1- 30 300 a: z w w

0 m a: :::;; w :::> a. z

20 200

10 100

0 0 0-4,999 5,000-9,999 10,000-19,999 20,000-30,000

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC

FREQUENCY OF AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC

APPENDIX D -I

en z 2 !:i 0 0 ...1

z 0

~ ...1 0 > u. 0. 1-z LLI 0 0::: LLI a. LLI > i= ~ ...1 ::::> ::::!: ::::> 0

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

~

'/'// '/ ,

"I ~ I

I I

/I I I

I/ I I I

l I I '

/ I I '

! I I '

I I ! I

I I '1 '

! I I I

I I I '

f I I I

:v I I I ,

I

~ ·~

"

- MEDIAN CROSSING

SEPARATION STRIP CROSSING EXIT WHERE NO EXIT RAMP EXISTS

SEPARATION STRIP CROSSING ENTRANCE WHERE NO ENTRANCE RAMP EXI'STS

o.-~----L-------~------~-------L------~------~--------L--28000 24000 20000 16000 12000 4000 8000

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC AND MAJOR TYPES OF VIOLATIONS

APPENDIX D -2

~ 0

~ u 9 z 0

!i .J 0 > ~

~ ~ a:: LIJ D..

3%L-----~------~2------~3------~4------~5~.------~6------77~----~8---

ADDITIONAL DISTANCE (MILES)

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ADDITIONAL DISTANCE AND ALL VIOLATIONS

APPENDIX E

100~----------------------------~-----=================~~~

90

en z 0 i= ~ 80 0 ..J

z 0

ti ..J 0 5 70 La.. 0 1-z w (.) a:: w Q.

~ 60

~ ..J ::l :::!: ::l (.)

50

40

30L_----~------~----~------~~--~~~--~----~~----~~ 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2

\

4

ADDITiONAL TIME (MINUTES)

RELATIONSHI-P· BET:WEEN ADOIT<IONAL TIME . AND.·· .ALL ·VlOLATIONS

APPENDIX F

.. () ( ) ''I·

(I) z (I)

0 j::: 50

500 z

<(

0

0 1-

0 <(

.J 0 0 .J

z Q z

0

~ .J

j:::

o· 40 400

<(

:;:. .J Q >

IL 0 ...

0 1-z 0:: 11.1 0

11.1

0:: ID

11.1' :::E

0.. 30 300 ::> z

200 20

100 10

0 0 RELATIVELY SAFE DANGEROUS VERY DANGEROUS

SEVERITY OF VIOLATIONS

FREQUENCY OF THE SEVERITY OF VIOLATIONS

APPENDIX G- I

100

90

. ---- -- :-::-:--==-~ ....... ------.,.,.,..,.:::::-:.:::::::-·--- -­.,.,...:;::-.,.. .. ,., ::::,-­

/ ..... / ........

/,. ...... / ....

/.-' //

// //

// ;,/

CJ) z 0

fi 0

80

9 70

z 0

// I/

I / I ,'

1/ /,' //

1/ ~ c5 60 > LL 0

/,' // I ,'

.... z

I I

~ 50 0:::

1/ I I

I : w 0.. I/

I I 1/ It ,: I{ /I If

30 ll t! 1: ~

20

10

0 5

RELATIVELY SAFE

DANGEROUS

VERY DANGEROUS

10 15 20 25

ADDITIONAL TIME TO GO LEGAL ROUTE /MINUTES)

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ADDITIONAL TIME AND SEVERITY OF VIOLATION

APPENDIX G-2

30

100.

1/)

0 z 0 1- 90 ct 0 0 .J

z 0 1-ct .J

80 0

>

II.. 0

1-z 1&.1 0 0: 1&.1 Cl.

1&.1 > i= ct .J ~ :E ~ 0

rJ

_.;,.--- ----------­... ...... ......

--RELATIVELY SAFE

------ DANGEROUS

VERY DANGEROUS

2 3 4 5 6

ADDITK>NAL DISTANCE TO GO LEGAL ROUTE (MILES)

------

7

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ADDITIONAL DISTANCE AND SEVERITY OF VIOLATION

APPENDIX G- 3

.'C::,.l;/

'

(/)

~ t=· o:( (.)

g z 0

~ ..J 0 > LL. 0

10

... z 4

"" (.) 0:: i.aJ tL

I

' ' I

' ' I

' ·:;U

' .. . .

I'

'SINCE HIGHWAY OPENED IN 19-

TEMPO:RARY DUE TO· CONSTRUCTION, ETC.

OTHER

PRESENCE OF VIOLATION

,,

SINCE CORRECTIVE MEASURE WAS PLACED

FREQUENCY OF PRESENCE OF VIOLATION LOCATIONS APPENDIX 1-1-1

··;.t

1000

900' ~

!i (.)

800 0 ..J

z 700 Q

t-<t ..J

600 2 . > LL.

500 Q

0:::

"" 400 m ~. :J z

3oo

200

100

0

Ill

~ 70 i= ~ 65

60 z 2 55 1-~ 50 0 > 45

l5 40

a:: 35 LLI ; 30 ::J z 25

20

15

10

5

0~--~~--~--~--~--~~~~---e~~~~~ 0 10 II 12

1964 1962 1960 1958 1956 1954 1952 1963 1961 1959 1957 1955 1953

Ill z 0

~ 9 ~ 300

~ .J 0 250 > u. 0

200 a:: LLI m

YEAR NUMBER OF EXISTING VIOLATION LOCATIONS

BEGINING IN PAST YEARS

100

75 1-z LLI (.) a::

~ 150 LLI

50 0.. z LLI > - 100 s ::J :E g 5o

25

ol_~--~--~~--~--~~--~~;=~~~~o 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12

1964 1962 1960 1958 1956 1954 1952 1963 1961 1959 1957 1955 1953

YEAR

CUMULATIVE NUMBER OF VIOLATION LOCATIONS

APPENDIX H-2

..,_" ·?~

~ 510.0

9 ~ 80

~ ..J

~so ..... 0

i- 40 z bJ 0 o:· le 20

0

70

~ Q60 ·ti 0

9 ~50 ~ <1: ..J

Q40 > ..... 0

1- 30. z bJ 0 0: ~ 20

10

-

RELATIVELY FLAT OTHER PROFILE·

FREQUENCY. OF PROFILE

Ul

l 000~ ~

900 0 9

800z 0

700 i= <1:

6ooc; >

500 ..... 0

400 0:

.300ll: ::E

200 ~

I 00

0

700 Ul z 0

600~ 0 0 ..J

500 z Q 1-<1:

400c; > .....

300 ° 0: bJ ID ::E

200~

100

OL---------~------------..J_----------------------~ 0 RURAL AREA URBAN AREA

FREEWAY AREA

FREQUENCY OF FREEWAY AREAS

~ .o Ul .z

~100. .----------------------------------------------------,1000~ "t

900 ° 0

9 z 0 ~ 75 ..J Q > :5 50

~ bJ

~ 25 bJ 0..

9 800 z

0 700 ~ 600 c;.

> 500 ..... 400 °

0:

300 ~

200 ~

o~----~~~~::~~----_j========================d~o NONE REPORTED ACCIDENTS REPORTED

70 Ul z 0

~ 60 0

9 Q 50 f-. <1: ..J

Q 40 > ..... 0

1-30

z bJ 0

~ 20 0..

10

0

ACCIDENT

FREQUENCY OF ACCIDENT HISTORY

700

Ul z 0

600 fi 0

3 500 z

0

~ ..J'

400 0

> .....

300 ° 0: bJ ID ::E

200 :::> z

100

L_ ________ _L __________ r=========~o LOW MEDIUM

ENFORCEMENT HIGH

FREQUENCY OF ENFORCEMENT RATINGS

APPENDIX I

;.'). r,;) "o

'1.. -~<;

100

fl)

z 90 Q ~ <(

0 80 0 ..J

~ 70 ~ <(

..J 60 0 > l1... 50 0

~ 40 z LLI 0 a:: 30 LLI ... ll.."·.

20

10

.'\

1000

900 fl) z 0

800 ~ 0 0 ..J

700 z Q ~

600 :5 0 >

500 l1...

0

a:: 400 LLI

m ::iE :::1

300 z

200

100

0 0 LESS THAN

5 MIN. 5 TO 15 MIN. 15 MIN TO

I HOUR I HR. TO 5 HRS. OVER 5 HRS.

DURATION OF VIOLATION

. VARIABLE

FREQUENCY OF DURATION OF VIOLATION (LENGTH OF TIME REQUIRED TO ACCOMPLISH VIOLATION MANEUVER}

APPENDIX J

REFERENCES

1. Shoulder and Rest Area Procedure Guide I Committee on Shoulders and Medians, Highway Research Board, Bulletin 359 1 1962,

2. Hutchinson 1 John W. 1 "The Significance and Nature of Vehicle Encroach­ment on Medians of Divided Highways," University of Illinois I Urbana, Illinois 1 Civil Engineering Studies 1 Highway Engineering Series No.8, December 1 1962.

3. Hallstead, William F., "Maryland Tries Radio-Operated Median Gates," Public Works, Volume 94, No.7, page 78, July, 1963.

-48-