Wildlife Vehicle Collision Reduction Study Why this Study

  • Slides: 27
Download presentation
Wildlife Vehicle Collision Reduction Study

Wildlife Vehicle Collision Reduction Study

Why this Study

Why this Study

Goals of the Study

Goals of the Study

What We found Out

What We found Out

Annual WVCs Estimated by Insurance Industry (Data Source: State Farm Insurance)

Annual WVCs Estimated by Insurance Industry (Data Source: State Farm Insurance)

Total WVCs and Total Crashes By Year Annual WVCs Estimated by Insurance Industry (Data

Total WVCs and Total Crashes By Year Annual WVCs Estimated by Insurance Industry (Data Source: GES)

Monthly Distribution of WVCs 0. 25 Proportion of Collisions FARS HSIS GES 0. 2

Monthly Distribution of WVCs 0. 25 Proportion of Collisions FARS HSIS GES 0. 2 0. 15 0. 1 0. 05 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC (Data Source: FARS, HSIS, GES)

Time-of-Day Distribution Proportion of Collisions 0. 12 FARS GES HSIS 0. 1 0. 08

Time-of-Day Distribution Proportion of Collisions 0. 12 FARS GES HSIS 0. 1 0. 08 0. 06 0. 04 0. 02 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hour of Day (Data Source: FARS, GES, HSIS)

WVCs by Number of Lanes Percent of Accidents 100% WVC ALL 80% 60% 40%

WVCs by Number of Lanes Percent of Accidents 100% WVC ALL 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 Number of Lanes (Data Source: GES). 6 7

Crashes by Average Daily Traffic 0. 7 WVC Proportion of Collisions 0. 6 ALL

Crashes by Average Daily Traffic 0. 7 WVC Proportion of Collisions 0. 6 ALL 0. 5 0. 4 0. 3 0. 2 0. 1 0 1 to 5000 500110, 000 (Data Source: HSIS) 10, 001 - 15, 001 - 20, 001 - 25, 001 - 30, 001 - >35, 000 15, 000 20, 000 25, 000 30, 000 35, 000 ADT

Proportion of Collisions Age Distribution for All Crashes and WVCs 0. 05 0. 04

Proportion of Collisions Age Distribution for All Crashes and WVCs 0. 05 0. 04 All WVC 0. 03 0. 02 0. 01 0 1 11 21 31 41 51 61 Driver Age (Data Source: HSIS). 71 81 91

Severity of Injury Distribution for WVCs vs. All Crashes All Collisions WVCs Only 1.

Severity of Injury Distribution for WVCs vs. All Crashes All Collisions WVCs Only 1. 7% 2. 3% 0. 5% 0. 04% 9. 4% None Possible Minor Severe Fatal 4. 3% 0. 5% None Possible Minor Severe Fatal 17. 6% 68. 3% 95. 4% (Data Source: GES).

Estimated Costs of WVC (Deer, Elk, and Moose) DESCRIPTION Vehicle repair costs per collision

Estimated Costs of WVC (Deer, Elk, and Moose) DESCRIPTION Vehicle repair costs per collision Human injuries per collision Human fatalities per collision Towing, accident attendance and investigation Monetary value animal per collision Carcass removal and disposal per collision TOTAL DEER $1, 840 $2, 500 $125 $2, 000 $50 $8, 015 ELK $3, 000 $5, 000 $6, 000 $375 $3, 000 $17, 475 MOOSE $4, 000 $10, 000 $12, 000 $500 $2, 000 $100 $28, 600

Solutions or Best Practices for Reducing WVCs

Solutions or Best Practices for Reducing WVCs

Wildlife Crossing with Fencing 87% average reduction in WVCs

Wildlife Crossing with Fencing 87% average reduction in WVCs

Wildlife Fencing Reported reductions in WVCs - 80 -99% Wildlife fencing along US Hwy.

Wildlife Fencing Reported reductions in WVCs - 80 -99% Wildlife fencing along US Hwy. 93 on Flathead Indian Reservation, MT

VERMONT ARIZONA

VERMONT ARIZONA

IN-vehicle Warning

IN-vehicle Warning

Reduce Speed by Traffic Calming, Reducing Design Speed Roadkill per Mile 20 15 10

Reduce Speed by Traffic Calming, Reducing Design Speed Roadkill per Mile 20 15 10 5 0 15 25 35 40 45 55 Posted Speed Roadkill by Posted Speed Limit in Yellowstone National Park Data Source: Gunther et al. 1998). Speed Bumps Used to Reduce WVCs in Australia

Identification of Ineffective Measures or Practices

Identification of Ineffective Measures or Practices

 • • • Measures For Which Research or Construction Resources Should Not Be

• • • Measures For Which Research or Construction Resources Should Not Be Used Standard wildlife warning signs Deer reflectors and mirrors Audio signals in the right-of-way or deer whistles on vehicles Olfactory repellants Deer flagging models Hazing Intercept feeding Wildlife relocation in order to reduce population size Anti-fertility treatment in order to reduce population size Seasonal road closures Reflective collars placed on wildlife

Future Actions • Incorporation of WVC reduction into the early stages of planning and

Future Actions • Incorporation of WVC reduction into the early stages of planning and design • Develop and implement guidelines and standards for collecting and reporting WVCs • Develop and implement guidelines for the evaluation of mitigation measures • Evaluate effectiveness of mitigation measures PDA-GPS prototype road kill data collector

Future Actions • Make existing mitigation measures more effective • Develop & apply population

Future Actions • Make existing mitigation measures more effective • Develop & apply population viability models to optimize location, type and dimensions of mitigation measures • Establish national funding source for WVC reduction • Technology transfer Test site for 8 different roadside animal detection systems - Lewistown, MT

Performing Organization Western Transportation Institute Montana State University P. O. Box 174250 Bozeman, MT

Performing Organization Western Transportation Institute Montana State University P. O. Box 174250 Bozeman, MT 59717 Under Contract to: The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 30 A Vreeland Road Florham Park, NJ 07932 Sponsoring Agency: Federal Highway Administration Office of Acquisition Management 400 7 th St. SW HAAM-30, Room 4410 Washington DC 20590 -0001