In Search of Zero Deaths: Making State Highway
60 and State Highway 66 a Safe Place to Drive
Policy Memorandum
Institute for Public Policy Studies
University of Denver
Taylor E. Lobato
Master of Public Policy Candidate
April 2015
Lobato |1
Table of Content
Executive Summary_____________________________________________
Understanding Rural Automobile Accidents ______________
Defining the Terms______________________________________________________
Fatality and Serious Injury________________________________________
3
4
4
4
Measuring Crashes: Rates and Count Data ______________________________ 5
Crash Causing Variables__________________________________________ 6
The Rural Context: The Fight to Save Lives ______________________________ 9
Problem Definition_________________________________________________13
Negative Effects of Automobile Accidents _______________________________ 13
Transportation Report Card: National, State, and County Conditions___ 15
National Context: “Towards Zero Deaths” National Policy
Goals and Rationale for more Government Intervention on all
Levels__________________________________________________________ ____ 15
State: Colorado’s Response to National Standards and Local
Pressures___________________________________________________________16
Local Context: Understanding the case of Weld County and
its most Dangerous Roads_________________________________________ 17
General Recommendations____________________________________ 19
Extending Current Policies______________________________________________ 19
Research Methods________________________________________________ 21
Research Priorities_____________________________________________________ _ 21
Research Limitations and Assumptions __________________________________
22
Issue Analysis_____________________________________________________ 22
Targeting Weld County Roads as Priority: State Highway 60,
State Highway 66_______________________________________________________ 22
Transportation Department Constraints: State and Local Authorities Pinching
Pennies________________________________________________________
24
Projected Maintenance and Infrastructure Strategies:
Working within the Framework___________________________________________ 24
The Future of Transportation: Colorado Gas Tax Implications___________ 25
Proposed Solutions________________________________________________
The Five Year Trend and Incident Fluctuations __________________________
Status Quo: The Current Infrastructure Targets __________________________
Context____________________________________________________________
Implementation Methods___________________________________________
Measurements of Success__________________________________________
Policy Recommendation #1: Road Shoulder Rumble Strips_______________
Context___________________________________________________________ _
Implementation Methods___________________________________________
Measurements of Success__________________________________________
Policy Option #2: Shoulder Maintenance________________________________
Context____________________________________________________________
Implementation Methods___________________________________________
Measurements of Success__________________________________________
Political Considerations_________________________________________________
26
27
27
27
28
29
29
29
31
31
32
32
33
34
34
Lobato |2
Cost Benefit Analysis____________________________________________ 35
Methodology____________________________________________________________ 35
Approach and Timeframe_________________________________________ 35
Stakeholders______________________________________________________ 36
Evaluation and Criteria Selection________________________________ 37
Future Cost Considerations_______________________________________ 37
Cost and Benefit Values__________________________________________ 37
Cost-Benefit Matrix _____________________________________________________ 39
Discussion_________________________________________________________41
Sensitivity Analysis _____________________________________________________ 41
Discussion________________________________________________________ 41
CBA Assumptions and Limitations________________________________________ 42
Weaknesses and Limitations ___________________________________ 42
Assumptions_____________________________________________________________ 44
Technology Futures_____________________________________________________ 44
Strategic Recommendation____________________________________ 45
Appendix_____________________________________________________________ 46
Definitions______________________________________________________________ 46
General Definitions______________________________________________ 46
Cost-Benefit Definitions_________________________________________ 46
Moral Hazard of Automobile Accidents _________________________________ 48
National Trends_________________________________________________________ 49
State Trends_____________________________________________________________ 50
CDOT’s Zero Death Campaign___________________________________ 51
Weld County Trends_____________________________________________________ 52
Driving on State Highway 60 and State Highway 66______ ______________ 53
Calculation of Injury and Fatality Rates on
Weld County State Highways____________________________________________ 55
Terms____________________________________________________________
Formulas and Calculations_______________________________________
Crash Reduction Factor (CRF)___________________________________________
Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) _____________________________
Rumble Strip Diagrams___________________________________________________
Highway Shoulder Diagrams_____________________________________________
Detailed Cost Benefit Matrix____________________________________________
Distribution of Source of Payment by Cost Category ____________________
Statistical Inputs_________________________________________________________
Policy Alternative Calculations__________________________________________
Sensitivity Analysis______________________________________________________
References_______________________________________________________________
56
56
57
57
58
59
60
61
62
64
66
68
List of Tables:
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
1
2
3
4
5
Rural vs Urban__________________________________________________ 9
Cost Benefit Inputs______________________________________________38
Cost-Benefit Matrix_____________________________________________ 40
Sensitivity Analysis______________________________________________41
Simplified Cost Benefit Analysis _________________________________45
Lobato |3
Executive Summary
The rise of the automobile has helped to build our country in ways never before imagined prior to
its existence. Highways have connected the United States and provided increased mobility to Americans
living in cities, suburbs areas, rural areas, and all over the world. However, there are negative
consequences for many Americans who travel by motor vehicle. According to the Federal Highway
Administration, motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among Americans ages 1-34.1 This
has led the federal government to implement a vision of zero fatalities; Towards Zero Deaths: A National
Strategy on Highway Safety.2 This vision is being adopted by transportation agencies across the country,
including the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) due to the large economic and societal
costs that vehicle crashes cause. The majority of accident costs occur when a driver is involved in an
accident that causes a severe injury, or a fatality. In 2010, as a result of 32,999 fatalities and 3.9 million
injuries, economic and societal costs to the public reached $277 billion.3 This number does not include
quality of life evaluations which would raise the economic and societal costs to $871 billion.4
A disproportionate amount of these accidents occur in rural areas. In Colorado, 60% of all
fatalities occurred on rural roads.5 In order for CDOT to reach the state and national vision of zero deaths,
they must target dangerous rural roads. This policy memorandum discusses policy options that CDOT
can implement in order to reduce fatalities and severe injuries. This analysis focuses on implementing
these policies on State Highway 60 and State Highway 66 located in Weld County. Weld County is home
to some of the highest fatality rates in the state, and these roads have been identified as dangerous and
have the highest rate of severe injuries and fatalities on rural roads in the county.
The policy alternatives that are compared are:
1. the status quo of current road maintenance
2. adding rumble strips on the shoulder to these sections of highway, and
3. extending the paved shoulder to 8 feed on these highway sections.
The costs, benefits, and success rates for reducing severe crashes were reviewed for each of these
alternatives and adding rumble strips to the shoulder of these roads was found to have the best net present
1
2
3
4
5
“ASCE | 2013 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure | Grade Sheet: Economic Implications.” Accessed March 8, 2015.
http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/a/#p/grade-sheet/economic-implications.
Toward Zero Deaths: A National Strategy on Highway Safety. Federal Highway Administration, June 2014. http://www.towardzerodeath
s.org/dld/TZD_Strategy_12_1_2014.pdf, 1.
Blincoe, L, J., T.R. Miller, E Zaloshnja, and B.A. Lawrence. The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes. Washington, D.C: National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, May 2014.
Ibid.
“Colorado’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan.” January 22, 2014. http://www.drivesmartweldcounty.com/assets/b6D8C90207Cda3a39adC.pdf.
Lobato |4
value. Therefore, the addition of rumble strips to the shoulder of dangerous rural highways will help
reduce automobile crashes resulting in severe injuries and fatalities and help save the severe economic
and social costs of automobile accidents and more importantly save lives.
Understanding Rural Automobile Accidents
-Defining the TermsFatality and Serious Injury
In order create targeted policies that reduce automobile accidents, it is important to define and
identify what types of accidents the policies are trying to reduce. This allows for policy makers to
determine what success looks like. For the scope of this analysis, it is also important to define the terms
that will be used in order to provide accurate information for the types of crashes that are being identified.
This analysis is focused on reducing crashes that occur on rural highways that result in severe injuries and
fatalities. Transportation authorities have found that policies specially tailored to address specific accident
types are the most effective types of polices.6 In order to measure the success of implemented policies, it
is also important to know what types of accident will be reduced in order to accurately measure success.
Automobile deaths are more likely to occur in rural areas partly due to the time it takes for
medical care to reach victims, as well the time it takes for authorities to know that an accident has
occurred.7 Because of this crashes that occur in rural areas may be more severe causing larger
consequences imposing greater costs compared to accidents that occur in urban areas.8 Repercussions
from crashes that leave passengers severely injured are exacerbated by the increased wait time for
medical attention and there becomes a higher chance of a non-fatal accident leading to death. For this
reason, the following analysis will only target crashes occurring in rural areas that are categorized as
6
“2014 Annual Report — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT.” File. Accessed March 8, 2015.
https://www.codot.gov/library/AnnualReports/2014-annual-report/view.
7
Vaughan, Kevin. “Rural Emergency Medicine.” Rocky Mountain PBS I-News. Accessed November 5, 2014. http://inewsnetwork.org/2013/08/29/ruralemergency-medicine/.
8
Khorashadi, Ahmad, Debbie Niemeier, Venky Shankar, and Fred Mannering. “Differences in Rural and Urban Driver-Injury Severities in Accidents
Involving Large-Trucks: An Exploratory Analysis.” Accident Analysis & Prevention 37, no. 5 (September 2005): 910–21.
doi:10.1016/j.aap.2005.04.009.
Lobato |5
resulting in a Fatal Injury, or a Suspected Serious Injury. The definitions for these crash types are as
follows and they will guide the rest of the analysis and recommendations:
A fatal injury is any injury that results in death within 30 days after the
motor crash in which the injury occurred. If the person did not die at the
Fatal Injury:
scene but died within 30 days of the motor vehicle crash in which the
injury occurred, the injury classification should be changed from the
attribute previously assigned to the attribute “Fatal Injury.”9
A suspected serious injury is any injury other than fatal which results in
one or more of the following:

Suspected
Serious Injury:






Severe laceration resulting in exposure of underlying
tissues/muscle/organs or resulting in significant loss of blood
Broken or distorted extremity (arm or leg)
Crush injuries
Suspected skull, chest or abdominal injury other than bruises or
minor lacerations
Significant burns (second and third degree burns over 10% or more
of the body)
Unconsciousness when taken from the crash scene
Paralysis
-Measuring Crashes: Rates and Count DataCrashes, injuries, and fatalities are measured in different ways when communicating policy
goals to the public. Count data is used to show clusters of accidents that could help to identify
dangerous areas on a given road. Crash rates are measured by comparing count data with population,
traffic congestion or average daily traffic, or compared to vehicle miles traveled (VMT). This type of
data also helps to identify times of the year when crashes occur more frequently. Crash rates are
calculated to better understand how often crashes occur throughout different areas of the state.10 The
9
MMUCC Guideline: Model Minimum Unifrom Crash Criteria. Fourth Edition. Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria, 2012.
http://mmucc.us/sites/default/files/MMUCC_4th_Ed.pdf, 34.
10
“2014 Annual Report — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT.” File. Accessed March 8, 2015.
https://www.codot.gov/library/AnnualReports/2014-annual-report/view.
Lobato |6
most common calculation of injury and fatality rates is the total number or crashes resulting in injury
or fatality per million vehicle miles traveled. This is also the same calculation that the Colorado
Department of Transportation uses in order to calculate crash rates in the state. That is the same rate
that was used in this analysis to compare crash rates across counties and across county highways in
order to target the highways that need to be made safer.
Crash Causing Variables
Variables causing automobile accidents are numerous and unpredictable. They can be grouped
into categories like human error factors and environment factors, but identifying actual causes of crashes
are less clear than these types of categories suggest. For example, human error factors include speeding,
vehicle miles traveled, and driving distractions while environmental factors can include variables like
weather, speed limits, and road quality.11 However, while human factors (such as speeding) may be
reported in a crash report but there may be other factors such as weather that contributed to the crash. This
makes it difficult to identify crash causes. Researchers and transportation departments collect crash
variables in order to help predict and prevent future accidents. However, due to the large amount of
variables and/or the combination of numerous variables, it makes crash likelihood very difficult to
predict. This makes transportation policy a very reactive process.
It also makes it very difficult to tailor policies to target these crash rates. Policies may be able to
target specific accident causing variables but they have their limits. Policies will never be able to
completely eliminate all accidents unless all crash causing factors can be eliminated. Some factors such as
human error can be reduced through policies that encourage safe driving, but human error cannot be
completely eliminated. Targeting human error may help drivers do better on the road, but policies cannot
control for other types of factors such as weather. These types of limitations make policy’s limitations
very visible and it requires those types of limitations to be addressed.
11
“2014 Full Colorado Problem Identification (ID) Report — CDOT.” File. Accessed November 5, 2014.
http://www.coloradodot.info/programs/safety-data-sources-information/full-colorado-problem-id-2014/view.
Lobato |7
Not only is it difficult to eliminate all crash reducing factors, but it is also difficult to measure the
success of policies if they are too broad. There must be control variables to help determine whether the
policy was successful. In order to measure polices to the best of their ability, transportation departments
design their policies to specifically target one category of accidents with the hope that those policies have
potential to be broader reaching. For example, a policy designed to target crashes caused by speeding by
lowering the speed limit, may have broader effects by reducing the number of crashes caused by animal
collisions because the driver is driving at slower speeds. It is useful to discuss the way crash data is
calculated and collected as it helps to understand the limitations of potential policy solutions and to
understand what types of policies are most effective in minimizing crash variables.
The types of crashes vary too much and cannot solely use count data. This is because sample
means can affect the likelihood of over-dispersion and under-dispersion characteristics. Variables found
to affect crash rates and crash likelihood include; proximity to school, speed of vehicle, vehicle miles
traveled, time of travel, substance use, lighting, sun glare, nearby economic development, weather, etc.12
The diversity in crash causes makes it extremely difficult to understand the exact cause of a crash and
makes it even more difficult to predict future crashes. Many researchers and transportation departments
have tried to simplify the measures, but the most complete and accurate calculations come from analyzing
traffic volumes, type of road, geometric design of road environments, and time variables such as time of
day and weather.13
There are problems with these types of measurements as well. Time variables make creating
models to predict crashes very difficult due to the future uncertainty of their occurrences.14 These models
tend to not be very accurate. Calculating future events (such as a high precipitation year with lots of
snow) is difficult to gage because weather is not a constant, nor is it predictable in the long term. This
12
Mitra, Sudeshna, and Simon Washington. “On the Significance of Omitted Variables in Intersection Crash Modeling.” Accident Analysis &
Prevention, PTW + Cognitive impairment and Driving Safety, 49 (November 2012): 439–48. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2012.03.014.
13
Cafiso, Salvatore, Alessandro Di Graziano, Giacomo Di Silvestro, Grazia La Cava, and Bhagwant Persaud. “Development of Comprehensive
Accident Models for Two-Lane Rural Highways Using Exposure, Geometry, Consistency and Context Variables.” Accident Analysis &
Prevention 42, no. 4 (July 2010): 1072–79. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2009.12.015.
14
Lord, Dominique, and Fred Mannering. “The Statistical Analysis of Crash-Frequency Data: A Review and Assessment of Methodological
Alternatives.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 44, no. 5 (June 2010): 291–305. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2010.02.001, 293.
Lobato |8
makes planning aimed at lowering crash rates in the long term much more difficult. However, those types
of variables are sometimes the highest contributing factors to accidents which makes trying to plan for
them all the more attractive. The most useful way to predict crashes is to use historical crash rates and
assume those numbers as average baselines for the future. This policy memo will use historic crash rates
to make strategic recommendations for implementing safety measures to reduce serious injuries and
fatalities.
Other problem areas that exist when collecting crash data, include the actual reporting of the
crash. Roadway crashes are recorded by either a report from the sheriff’s office or they are self-reported
to the sheriff’s office.15 This can cause accidents to be underreported or contain human error when
interpreting accident causes and it can lead to inconsistent information between the two organizations. For
consistency, all the crash information in this memo was collected from the Colorado Department of
Transportation and Weld County Department of Public Works as they was the most complete and had the
most comprehensive data.
When analyzing this data, it is also important to understand these limitations in crash causes and
crash data reporting. This is to avoid misinterpreting correlations for causation. For the scope of this
analysis, policy recommendations will be targeted to specific crash causing variables and crash types.
This is to ensure that the success and effectiveness of each policy can be identified. It is important to
insure that CDOT’s funds are being used efficiently and show to be a good infrastructure investment. If
investments are not successful in making the roads safer, future funds to target crash rates may not be
available. For more discussion on CDOT’s financial constraints, please see the Future of Transportation
section.
15
“2014 Monthly Fatals — CDOT.” File. Accessed October 30, 2014. http://www.coloradodot.info/library/traffic/traffic-manuals-guidelines/safetycrash-data/fatal-crash-data-city-county/monthly-fatals-2014/view.
Lobato |9
Table 1
The Rural Context: The Fight to
Save Lives
Place of residence is a contributing factor to the
likelihood of being in a serious automobile accident. Only
5% of Americans live in rural areas but 55% of roadway
fatalities occurred on rural roads.16While higher number of
accidents occur in urban areas due to higher congestion,
those living in rural areas have a statistically higher chance
of being in an accident that results in serious injuries or
*Chart collected from CDOT Strategic Highway Plan
death.17 In northern Colorado 75% of total accidents occurred in urban areas, but 60% of the fatalities
occurred in on rural roads.18 CDOT’s 2013 Colorado Problem Identification report showed that 21
counties had fatality rates (death per 100,000 people) that were twice the state goal or higher.19 All of
these counties were primarily rural counties. This occurs for numerous reasons, injuries are more serious
because the average medical response time is longer in rural areas and there is further distance to the
nearest medical facility.20 Availability to care influences fatalities greatly as potential non-fatal accidents
become fatal (per capita doctors which serves as a proxy for quality healthcare).21 Higher speeds lead to
more crashes, and if a serious but non-fatal crash occurs in an urban area it is more likely they will
receive the care the victim needs to avoid a fatality. In Colorado 61% of auto accidents ending in fatalities
16
“Stateline – State Traffic Fatalities Depend on Country Roads, Seat Belt Use, Drunk Driving and Speeding.” Accessed March 28, 2015.
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2013/03/12/rural-states-struggle-to-reduce-road-deaths.
17
Vaughan, Kevin. “Rural Emergency Medicine.” Rocky Mountain PBS I-News. Accessed November 5, 2014.
http://inewsnetwork.org/2013/08/29/rural-emergency-medicine/.
18
“Colorado’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan.” January 22, 2014. http://www.drivesmartweldcounty.com/assets/b6D8C90207Cda3a39adC.pdf.
19
“2014 Full Colorado Problem Identification (ID) Report — CDOT.” File. Accessed November 5, 2014.
http://www.coloradodot.info/programs/safety-data-sources-information/full-colorado-problem-id-2014/view.
20
Ibid
21
Albalate, Daniel, Laura Fernández, and Anastasiya Yarygina. “The Road against Fatalities: Infrastructure Spending vs. Regulation??” Accident
Analysis & Prevention 59 (October 2013): 227–39. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2013.06.008, 235.
L o b a t o | 10
occurred in rural areas.22 While this is on par with the national fatality rates, rural road safety still presents
Colorado with an opportunity to improve rural road safety.
Understanding the circumstances under which rural crashes occur is important to creating policies
that help reduce those crashes. A report by the journal Accident Analysis & Prevention found that
cognitive differences in drivers effect the way they drive in rural versus urban areas.23 Drivers in urban
areas have much more to pay attention to and drivers tend to be much more aware in urban areas. When
driving in rural areas, there is less to keep drivers’ attentions and accidents from inattentive driving. For
example, accidents caused by inattentive driving and falling asleep are more likely to occur on rural road.
The results of these types of accidents are much more severe in rural areas because drivers are more likely
driving faster and more likely to be in a head-on collision or drive off the road with more severe results.24
This is true in either flat, plain-like areas where hitting a telephone pole is possible or in mountainous
areas where the risk of rolling down a slope is more likely. State transportation departments understand
the higher risk of auto fatalities and severe injury in rural areas, but solving those problems are much
more problematic. Justifying infrastructure improvements (especially expensive measures) is difficult
because small populations place little wear and tear on rural roads. Urban infrastructure investment aimed
at reducing congestion and improving safety is portrayed as a much more cost effective investment. States
and their transportation departments must find a way to make increasing safety on rural infrastructure
financially and politically feasible in order to reduce automobile crashes resulting in severe injuries and
fatalities. This trend is not unique to Colorado; both in the state and nationally 55% of all fatalities occur
in rural areas.25 CDOT has identified rural counties as problem areas which means that the department’s
goals will help them meet state goals.
22
23
“Fatal Crash Totals.” Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Highway Loss Data Institute, 2012. http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/generalstatistics/fatalityfacts/state-by-state-overview.
Khorashadi, Ahmad, Debbie Niemeier, Venky Shankar, and Fred Mannering. “Differences in Rural and Urban Driver-Injury Severities in Accidents
Involving Large-Trucks: An Exploratory Analysis.” Accident Analysis & Prevention 37, no. 5 (September 2005): 910–21.
doi:10.1016/j.aap.2005.04.009.
24
“Stateline – State Traffic Fatalities Depend on Country Roads, Seat Belt Use, Drunk Driving and Speeding.” Accessed March 28, 2015.
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2013/03/12/rural-states-struggle-to-reduce-road-deaths.
25
“Fatal Crash Totals.” Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Highway Loss Data Institute, 2012. http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/generalstatistics/fatalityfacts/state-by-state-overview.
L o b a t o | 11
These roads and their safety are important because they help people achieve mobility. Mobility
has always been important for Americans. It helps to provide opportunities and has proven an important
factor in helping those in poverty achieve economic prosperity. Not to mention, mobility has created the
ability for Americans to locate and live in a community where their quality of life is the highest that it can
be. For rural American’s, mobility is even more important. Driving allows children to go to school,
groceries to be bought, and it allow for trips into urban areas for employment, supplies, and
entertainment. Driving has become a necessity for rural communities across the country and in Colorado.
While commuting times differ, rural residents have a higher rate of vehicle miles traveled than urban
residents which leads to a higher likelihood of being in a crash.26 Population density show different levels
of fatality rates and there tend to be higher rates of fatalities in rural areas. Lower density areas have
higher speeds, there are extended periods of time before emergency response reaches the crash site, and
there is a lower demand for quality healthcare in general.27
The benefits of reducing roadway fatalities is much broader than just lives saved. Regional
economic and emotional hardships are also incurred when fatalities occur. 28 Rural areas around crash
sites are in a difficult situation as they fight for an increase in economic activity while still trying to create
a safe environment. As economic activity increases, it also affects the likelihood of accidents.29 More
people on the road at high speeds who are traveling to the same areas, increase the likelihood that there
will be a crash. However, the economic benefits that occur from increased travel and tourists to an area
are what rural areas try to attract. However, it is not the rural towns that see more accidents, it is the rural
highways that connect destinations that see the highest majority of crashes. Because highway speeds are
faster than smaller roads, highway crashes tend to be more violent and are more likely to result in death. 30
26
Traynor, Thomas L. “Regional Economic Conditions and Crash Fatality Rates – a Cross-County Analysis.” Journal of Safety Research 39, no. 1
(2008): 33–39. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2007.10.008, 34.
27
Ibid, 35.
28
Lord, Dominique, and Fred Mannering. “The Statistical Analysis of Crash-Frequency Data: A Review and Assessment of Methodological
Alternatives.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 44, no. 5 (June 2010): 291–305. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2010.02.001.
29
Albalate, Daniel, Laura Fernández, and Anastasiya Yarygina. “The Road against Fatalities: Infrastructure Spending vs. Regulation??” Accident
Analysis & Prevention 59 (October 2013): 227–39. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2013.06.008, 231.
30
Egilmez, Gokhan, and Deborah McAvoy. “Benchmarking Road Safety of U.S. States: A DEA-Based Malmquist Productivity Index Approach.”
Accident Analysis & Prevention 53 (April 1, 2013): 55–64. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2012.12.038.
L o b a t o | 12
Urban and rural interests are at odds when CDOT determines how to rank their priorities. While
fatal accidents are more likely to occur in rural areas, congestion and surface repair in urban areas are
competitive interests that need funding as well. Investments make in rural areas must be cost effective,
and long lasting in order to justify improvements. Safer rural highways not only lead to emotional
benefits that result in avoiding death but they also have economic benefits. Even in rural areas, healthier
economic areas are associated with better infrastructure, quality of emergency service, quality medical
care, and individual behavior choices are safer in regard to vehicle choice and driving behavior. 31 These
investments lead to a healthier and more productive community. Still, as mentioned above, there is a limit
to these investments that must be balanced. While communities become healthier, there are fewer
fatalities. However, it’s not that simple. This same demographic that invests in safer vehicles , also places
higher value on “shorter travel time (higher speeds) and more frequent trips (higher exposure) which
results in a higher rate of crashes. 32
The high rates of crash fatalities in rural areas warrants consideration for investments in roadway
safety. Colorado’s 21 rural counties that exceed the state’s goal in deaths per 100,000 people are
identified target areas for improvement.33 However, choosing a policy that is financially efficient/feasible
as well as a policy that has successful outcomes is of the utmost importance. Types of road safety policies
are numerous and all include different results. In order for new infrastructure to even be considered as a
policy recommendation it has to last at least ten years in order to comply with CDOT’s financial deficit
plan.34 Working within the current system for CDOT is important and makes it much more likely that a
policy recommendation would be accepted.
31
Traynor, Thomas L. “Regional Economic Conditions and Crash Fatality Rates – a Cross-County Analysis.” Journal of Safety Research 39, no. 1
(2008): 33–39. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2007.10.008, 34.
32
Traynor, Thomas L. “Regional Economic Conditions and Crash Fatality Rates – a Cross-County Analysis.” Journal of Safety Research 39, no. 1
(2008): 33–39. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2007.10.008, 34.
33
“2014 Full Colorado Problem Identification (ID) Report — CDOT.” File. Accessed November 5, 2014.
http://www.coloradodot.info/programs/safety-data-sources-information/full-colorado-problem-id-2014/view.
34
2014 Transportation Deficit Report. Colorado Department of Transportation, 2014. http://www.coloradodot.info/library/AnnualReports/2014-annualtransportation-deficit-report.pdf.
L o b a t o | 13
Problem Definition
Problem Definition:
Too many automobile accidents resulting in severe injuries and fatalities are occurring on State
Highways 60 and 66, resulting in significant negative consequences on the affected individuals and
surrounding communities.
According to the Federal Highway Administration, motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of
death among Americans ages 1-34. Serious automobile injuries and fatalities disproportionately occur on
rural roads causing large costs to those involved in the accident as well as those in the community.35
These high costs have resulted in federal, state, and local initiatives to help reduce vehicle crash injuries
and fatalities.36 The following section will discuss the negative effects of roadway accidents and how
severe injuries and fatalities effect national, state, and local communities.
-Negative Effects of Automobile AccidentsInjuries and death are the most obvious negative consequences that occur from automobile
accidents. Nevertheless, there are many more negative consequences that have broader impacts upon
communities and the transportation. The largest cost caused by these accidents is the loss in quality of
life. This costs accounts for 68% of all costs incurred by automobile accidents.37 Both severe injuries and
fatalities inflict large medical and legal costs and result in the loss of workplace productivity that benefits
the economy.38 While the loss to productivity is greater for a fatality, due to the loss of life, medical costs
are much higher for automobile crash victims who survive with severe injuries.39Each severely injured
35
36
Nguyen-Hoang, Phuong, and Ryan Yeung. “Dollars for Lives: The Effect of Highway Capital Investments on Traffic Fatalities.” Journal of Safety
Research 51 (December 2014): 109–15. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2014.09.008.
Toward Zero Deaths: A National Strategy on Highway Safety. Federal Highway Administration, June 2014.
http://www.towardzerodeaths.org/dld/TZD_Strategy_12_1_2014.pdf.
37
Blincoe, L, J., T.R. Miller, E Zaloshnja, and B.A. Lawrence. The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes. Washington, D.C:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, May 2014.
38
Ibid.
39
Ibid.
L o b a t o | 14
crash victim costs about $1.1 million with around 80% of those costs occurring from medical expenses
and lost productivity.40 This is due to the extended period of time that injuries need to be treated.
There are also smaller, secondary costs that occur as results of these accidents such as congestion
costs as well as insurance costs. Congestion costs come from lost worktime productivity and can also led
to negative externalities such as increased pollution.41However, because this analysis focuses on rural
automobile fatalities congestion is not a main cost to these types of accidents for the simple fact that there
are fewer cars on the road. There is the possibility of roadway closures during accident clean up, but the
costs are minimal as low volume roads tend to have alternate routes and productivity loss is not as drastic.
Insurance costs are another secondary cost to automobile accidents. As insurance companies raise
premiums other users of the system are negatively affected by those price increases. In many ways, these
insurance costs represent a moral hazard within the automobile insurance industry.42 A moral hazard
occurs when some people take more risks because others will bear the cost. There is an argument that
because some states have no-fault laws that minimalize insurance costs after an accident, it incentivizes
drivers to engage in riskier behavior which leads to more severe injuries and fatalities.43 The only way to
address these secondary costs is through government regulation and law creation.44 This analysis does not
suggest regulation and law to decrease automobile accidents. Therefore, please see the appendix for a
more detailed discussion on automobile accidents as a moral hazard.
40
41
42
43
Ibid.
Cohen, Alma, and Rajeev Dehejia. The Effect of Automobile Insurance and Accident Liability Laws in Traffic Fatalities. Working Paper. National
Bureau of Economic Research, April 2003. http://www.nber.org/papers/w9602.
Ibid.
Cohen, Alma, and Rajeev Dehejia. The Effect of Automobile Insurance and Accident Liability Laws in Traffic Fatalities. Working Paper. National
Bureau of Economic Research, April 2003. http://www.nber.org/papers/w9602.
44
Ibid.
L o b a t o | 15
Transportation Report Card: National, State, and County
Conditions
National Context: “Towards Zero Deaths” National Policy Goals and
Rationale for more Government Intervention on all Levels
There were 33,561 and 2.36 million injuries on U.S. roads in 2012.45 While fatalities in the
county have decreased by 26% from 2005 to 2011, reducing these incidents are still a national priority. A
2014 study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shows that these motor vehicle
accidents have an $871 billion economic and societal impact on U.S. citizens.46 These large costs have led
the federal government to implement a vision of zero fatalities; Towards Zero Deaths: A National
Strategy on Highway Safety.47 This strategy’s goal is to increase highway safety across the country by
bringing together stakeholders to create a strategy that state and local transportation agencies can use to
increase safety on a local level.48
Unfortunately, although fatalities and severe injuries have been in a downward trend in
the past decade they are still causing large costs across the country. National and state safety polices have
failed to meet the goal of zero deaths.49 The amount of variables that factor into automobile accidents, as
mentioned before, make it nearly impossible to create a national standard that would eliminate all
fatalities. Different state laws, different transportation authorities and different geographical make-up
means that achieving zero fatalities must occur on a local level and move upwards. However, this guiding
strategy influences the policies of state and local agencies to also move to zero deaths.
45
46
47
48
49
Toward Zero Deaths: A National Strategy on Highway Safety. Federal Highway Administration, June 2014.
http://www.towardzerodeaths.org/dld/TZD_Strategy_12_1_2014.pdf.
Blincoe, L, J., T.R. Miller, E Zaloshnja, and B.A. Lawrence. The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes. Washington, D.C:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, May 2014.
Ibid.
Toward Zero Deaths: A National Strategy on Highway Safety. Federal Highway Administration, June 2014.
http://www.towardzerodeaths.org/dld/TZD_Strategy_12_1_2014.pdf.
Albalate, Daniel, Laura Fernández, and Anastasiya Yarygina. “The Road against Fatalities: Infrastructure Spending vs. Regulation??” Accident
Analysis & Prevention 59 (October 2013): 227–39. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2013.06.008.
L o b a t o | 16
State: Colorado’s Response to National Standards and Local Pressures
In Colorado alone, 2013 resulted in 481 motor related deaths and 3,319 serious injury crashes.50
2013 was a 1.9% increase and a 0.4% increase in fatalities and serious injuries, respectively, from 2012.51
Safety has become such a priority of the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) that they are
shadowing the federal goal of moving towards zero deaths.52 Compared nationally, Colorado has 1.6 less
fatalities per 100,000 people than the national rate.53 However, Colorado is ranked 26th when it comes to
fatal crashes.54 Being in the middle of rankings means that there is room for improvement. The state has
also seen a 7% increase in total crashes in the past five years which shows that there is still need to
address roadway safety.
Two of the largest contributing factors in accidents is distracted driving and speeding. In 2013,
58,802 (29%) of crashes were the result of human error and distracted driving.55 This is also classified as
cases of distracted driving. These accidents became such an issue that the Institute of Transportation
Management at Colorado State University conducted a distracted driver study. They found that 15.6
percent out of over 24,000 observed drivers were distracted.56 Speeding is another major cause for
automobile accidents. In 2013, speeding was a contributing factor to almost one third to all fatalities.57
Speeding is particularly dangerous because when it does contribute to an accident, the resulting injuries
tend to be much more severe and they are more likely to lead to death. Because speeding is common place
on rural roads, it exacerbates the rates of death and serious injuries in rural areas.
50
“2014 Full Colorado Problem Identification (ID) Report — CDOT.” File. Accessed November 5, 2014.
http://www.coloradodot.info/programs/safety-data-sources-information/full-colorado-problem-id-2014/view ,i.
51
Ibid.
52
“2014 Full Colorado Problem Identification (ID) Report — CDOT.” File. Accessed November 5, 2014.
http://www.coloradodot.info/programs/safety-data-sources-information/full-colorado-problem-id-2014/view, i.
53
Ibid, 4.
54
“Fatal Crash Totals.” Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Highway Loss Data Institute, 2012. http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/generalstatistics/fatalityfacts/state-by-state-overview.
55
“2014 Full Colorado Problem Identification (ID) Report — CDOT.” File. Accessed November 5, 2014.
http://www.coloradodot.info/programs/safety-data-sources-information/full-colorado-problem-id-2014/view.
56
Ibid.
57
Ibid
L o b a t o | 17
Because distracted driving and speeding are responsible for such a large percentage accidents in
Colorado, they are becomes the most appropriate variable to target through safety policy. By targeting
distracted drivers and those who speed through safety policies if successful the total state count of severe
injuries and fatalities would be reduced dramatically. Successful policies that address these two types of
accident causes could also help reduce other types of accidents creating positive externalities and
reducing injury and fatality rates even more.58
Local Context: Understanding the case of Weld County and its most
Dangerous Roads
Weld County has the most lane miles (7,489.3) in the state as well as the most centerline miles
(2,966.6).59 Like most counties, it is filled with state highways as well as county roads, but the majority of
the roads in Weld County classify as rural. CDOT classifies Weld county as an urban county, but outside
of Greeley, there is very little “urban” about the roads. This classification limits the ability to prepare and
address the rural infrastructure needs across the state.60 49 fatal crashes occurred in Weld County in 2014;
the highest count of any county in the state. 20% of all crashes were caused by distracted driving and
Weld County has the second most fatalities caused by speeding.61 This makes it an important target for
policies to improve roadway safety.
Roads inside of Weld County also provide much needed connectivity for the transport of
agricultural goods as well as a means of mobility for trucks supplying and delivering for the oil and gas
industry. These roads are vital to the economy of both the county and the state as a whole. Weld County is
growing at an enormous rate. As the oil and gas industry grew over the past couple of years, the U.S.
58
59
Goodwin, A, B Kirley, L Sandt, W Hall, L Thomas, N O’Brien, and D Summerlin. Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure
Guide For State Highway Safety Offices. 7th Edition. Washington, D.C: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, April 2013.
file:///C:/Users/Taylor.Lobato/Downloads/811727%20(1).pdf,4-4.
2013 County Road Milage Report - County Road Statistics. Colorado Department of Transportation, 2013.
http://dtdapps.coloradodot.info/StaticData/Statistics/dsp_folder/Roadway/HUTF2013/CountyMileage2013_HUTF.pdf.
60
“2014 Annual Report — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT.” File. Accessed March 8, 2015.
https://www.codot.gov/library/AnnualReports/2014-annual-report/view, 62.
61
“2014 Full Colorado Problem Identification (ID) Report — CDOT.” File. Accessed November 5, 2014.
http://www.coloradodot.info/programs/safety-data-sources-information/full-colorado-problem-id-2014/view.
L o b a t o | 18
Census listed Weld County as one of the 100 fastest growing counties in the nation.62 With a yearly
average growth rate of 3%, Weld County will continue to see growth that adds pressure to the
infrastructure systems. As population increases, so does use of the roads for uses like commuting to and
from work. Weld county roads also provide a necessary route for work commuters both coming in to and
going out of the county. Strategically placed in between large urban hubs like Fort Collins, Loveland,
Denver, and Boulder and with Greeley being the urban hub in the county, there are large amounts of
people using the roads to get to and from their work places. As traffic increases, so does the likelihood for
accidents which means that making the deadliest roads in the county safer is of the utmost importance.
After an analysis of crashes resulting in fatalities and injuries on each of the rural state highways
within the county, two highways were identified as having the largest total rate of incidents. In Weld
County, rural stretches of State Highway 60 (SH 60) and State Highway 66 (SH 66) had the largest rate of
fatalities and injuries at 0.205 and 0.351 total crashes per million vehicle miles of travel.63 These two
highways are rural arterials that connect small towns within the county to larger highways I25 and State
Highway 85. The rural sections of these roads that reside in Weld County are about 4 miles for SH 60 and
13 miles for SH 66.64 These two-lane roads average from around 4,000 to 10,000 average daily traffic in
different sections.65 Still categorized as rural, these roads carry low-volume but they are on the margin
and some areas have more traffic than they are built for. This can be seen through their high rates of
fatalities and severe injuries. With a projected increase in population these highways are key subjects to
reduce fatalities and severe injuries in the pursuit to zero deaths.
The above definition defines the number of fatalities and injuries in terms of excess. “Too many”
refers to the count of accidents that exceeds the ultimate goal of zero deaths as created by the Federal
62
63
64
65
Tribune, The Greeley. “Weld Public Safety Officials Address Spike in 2014 Fatal Vehicle Crashes, Step up Traffic Enforcemen |
GreeleyTribune.com.” The Greeley Tribune. Accessed March 30, 2015. http://www.greeleytribune.com/news/14743566-113/weld-public-safetyofficials-address-spike-in-2014-fatal-vehicle.
Please see Appendix for calculations and detailed comparison of state highway crash rates gathered from: Crash Rate Book 2012: Crashes and Rates
on State Highways. CDOT Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch: Accident Data Management Unit, 2012.
Crash Rate Book 2012: Crashes and Rates on State Highways. CDOT Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch: Accident Data Management Unit,
2012.
Crash Rate Book 2012: Crashes and Rates on State Highways. CDOT Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch: Accident Data Management Unit,
2012.
L o b a t o | 19
Highway and Safety Administration. Weld County and specifically State Highway 60 and State Highway
66 have been identified as problem areas with too many accidents. The negative consequences are seen in
lost economic productivity, loss of life, and costs to victims that include large medical and legal costs.
Because the defined Federal Goal is zero deaths, any deaths at all would be too many. However, it is
unrealistic to believe that one policy can completely meet that goal. Instead, by identifying problem areas
where these accidents occur at higher rates, it makes it possible to create targeted policies that reduce
accidents resulting in fatalities and severe injuries at specific problem locations.
General Recommendations
-Extending Current PoliciesResearchers largely agree that government policies aimed to reduce crashes fall into two
categories: infrastructure maintenance and regulation.66 These two different types of policies have
different types of results. Infrastructure and road maintenance are physical manipulations of the road that
are effective in correcting or changing human behaviors while they are driving. Infrastructure crash
reduction policies include physically manipulating roadways or shoulders to try and contain vehicles on
the road or physically alert the driver about their space on the road.67 Regulation aims to change human
behavior prior to drivers getting on the road. Regulations include educational campaigns, law creation
(i.e. speed limits and seat belt laws), and observational law enforcement.68 Both types of polices require
different types of costs and produce different types of success.
When creating regulations the most important part of these policies is that they require law
enforcement or some other sort of observation in order to penalize people who are not following the
law.69 These policies have been extremely useful in preventing fatalities and severe injuries in cases
66
67
Albalate, Daniel, Laura Fernández, and Anastasiya Yarygina. “The Road against Fatalities: Infrastructure Spending vs. Regulation??” Accident
Analysis & Prevention 59 (October 2013): 227–39. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2013.06.008.
Goodwin, A, B Kirley, L Sandt, W Hall, L Thomas, N O’Brien, and D Summerlin. Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure
Guide For State Highway Safety Offices. 7th Edition. Washington, D.C: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, April 2013.
file:///C:/Users/Taylor.Lobato/Downloads/811727%20(1).pdf.
68
Ibid.
69
Albalate, Daniel, Laura Fernández, and Anastasiya Yarygina. “The Road against Fatalities: Infrastructure Spending vs. Regulation??” Accident
Analysis & Prevention 59 (October 2013): 227–39. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2013.06.008.
L o b a t o | 20
where seatbelts are not being used.70 An example of a successful regulation is the enforcement of seatbelt
use which resulted in an increase of automobile passengers driving light trucks. They saw seatbelt usage
increase from 65% to 85% in 2013.71 They also discovered that a 10% increase in officer patrol causes a
2% drop in seat belt related fatality rates within the state.72 While useful, policy enforcement is expensive.
Each new police officer hired or every extended hour worked by a police officer requires money that
agencies like CDOT and public safety departments do not have. Also, the investment of this kind of patrol
in rural areas is difficult to justify due to the low-level of traffic that occurs there. Other types of
regulations used to prevent accidents include public service and educational campaigns that urge drivers
not to talk on their cell phones, text or eat when driving.73
While somewhat effective, these types of driving regulations are observable and can be enforced
by law enforcement. However, these types of policies tend to be less effective and less measureable in
terms of success than road maintenance policies.74 As mentioned previously, accident causing factors of
speed and distracted driving are key areas of concerns for accidents resulting in fatalities or serious
injuries. These types of injuries that are specific to Weld County cannot be reduced by regulations. The
cost and implementation of increased patrolling or educational campaigns would not be cost effective on
SH 60 and SH 66. Instead road maintenance or construction can be used to make the roads safer.
Road maintenance includes any sort of policy that places physical barriers or road surfaces to
ward drivers that they could potentially be entering into a crash situation. Road maintenance and spending
on infrastructure is linked more to an increase in road safety than to policy regulations requiring
enforcement.75 Examples of road maintenance include signage, lighting, adding rumble strips the side of
70
DeAngelo, Gregory, and Benjamin Hansen. “Life and Death in the Fast Lane: Police Enforcement and Traffic Fatalities †.” American Economic
Journal: Economic Policy 6, no. 2 (May 2014): 231–57. doi:10.1257/pol.6.2.231.
71
“2014 Full Colorado Problem Identification (ID) Report — CDOT.” File. Accessed November 5, 2014.
http://www.coloradodot.info/programs/safety-data-sources-information/full-colorado-problem-id-2014/view, 13.
72
DeAngelo, Gregory, and Benjamin Hansen. “Life and Death in the Fast Lane: Police Enforcement and Traffic Fatalities †.” American Economic
Journal: Economic Policy 6, no. 2 (May 2014): 231–57. doi:10.1257/pol.6.2.231, 19.
73
74
75
2013 State of Colorado Distracted Driving Study. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University: Institute of Transportation Management, 2013.
https://www.codot.gov/library/surveys/2013-cdotdistracteddriver.pdf, 7.
Albalate, Daniel, Laura Fernández, and Anastasiya Yarygina. “The Road against Fatalities: Infrastructure Spending vs. Regulation??” Accident
Analysis & Prevention 59 (October 2013): 227–39. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2013.06.008.
Ibid, 235.
L o b a t o | 21
the road, or increasing road and shoulder width. All of these physical constructions add warning to the
driver that they are distracted and need to bring back their attention in order to avoid an accident or help
to limit the severity of an accident if one does occur. Because the costs of infrastructure are mostly up
front in nature, they continue to have the same upkeep expenses that the road would have prior to their
installation.
For rural roads in Colorado enforcement is not enough to prevent other factors from causing
severe injuries and fatalities which include factors such as availability to healthcare. In order to prevent
accidents from happening and stop the potential for fatalities CDOT must focus on road infrastructure
improvements in order to prevent accidents from occurring. These policies are more cost efficient in the
long run and can be integrated into the current maintenance plans. It is also important to keep in mind that
while all of these policies may reduce fatalities, they can cause an increase in the crash rate. Being very
honest about the limitations of these policies and providing very specific goals and measurements of
success is important in understanding the intended results of these policies. By specifically targeting SH
60 and SH 66, the chance to create targeted policy that is best for those areas will have better results. The
goal of these policies should not necessarily change behavioral attitudes as regulation or educational
activities would, instead, these policies will reduce drivers’ exposure to risk when they get on the road. 76
Research Methods
-Research PrioritiesThe majority of research and data used in this analysis was collected online from transportation
agencies at the federal, state, and local level. These agencies include the Federal Highway Administration,
National Highway Safety Administration, Colorado Department of Transportation, and the Weld County
Department of Public Works. All crash data, local road conditions, as well reports on specific roadway
classifications were collected from these agencies’ online databases or obtained from professionals
76
Ibid.
L o b a t o | 22
working in these agencies. Other research includes the references found in various academic databases to
help understand the context and implications of roadway accidents. Academic journals such as Accident,
Analysis & Prevention, National Bureau of Economic Research, and the Journal of Safety Research were
used to highlight previous analysis of the economic and social impacts of roadway accidents as well as
recommendations on policy alternatives that could be possible in helping to solve the problem.
-Research Limitations and Assumptions The data and research presented in this analysis were all chosen deliberately to provide the most
comprehensive analysis of the issue but there are limitations and assumptions associated with those
choices. Crash data was collected from the most recent year possible although the most recent information
was not always published from the departments. Some data presented was gathered from different years
and compared to one another. The most recent data does not fluctuate too much from past years so it did
not detract from the ability to identify problem areas. Multi-year data was not compared against itself
unless specifically mentioned. All crash data was compared to other data from the same year in order to
make an informed decision when choosing target areas, types of accidents, as well as when choosing
policy alternatives. All monetary costs and benefits discussed in the following section were converted into
2015 dollars in order to account for inflation and current buying power. Those monetary numbers were
also collected on as local a scale as possible in order to report on accurate costs of construction. This is to
insure that local circumstances were taken into account to provide the most accurate analysis possible.
Issue Analysis
Targeting Weld County Roads as Priority:
State Highway 60 & State Highway 66
SH 60 and SH 66 provide vital connections between urban areas and places where agriculture and
oil production occur throughout the county and especially in our state. .77 Because state highways tend to
77
“SH 60 in Weld County — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT.” Page. Accessed March 27, 2015.
https://www.codot.gov/projects/floodrelatedprojects/sh-60-in-weld-county.
L o b a t o | 23
see higher daily traffic in rural areas, the majority of crashes occur on them. 5,737 non intersection
crashes were recorded on state highways since 2007 which is about the same as non-intersection city and
county road crashes combined.78 SH 60 and SH 66 find their average daily traffic ranging from 4,000 cars
to 14,000 cars on different rural sections in Weld County. The difference in traffic rates on these roads
make the classification of “rural arterial” very complicated. Because this road is designated as a “rural
arterial” there are only certain types of surface requirements that CDOT must meet in order to keep the
road safe for drivers. However, because the range in traffic is so big, once higher rates of traffic occur the
safety of the road decreases dramatically.79 While on paper two roads meet all the safety requirements,
their high levels of crashes suggest that they could be made safer.
These two highways run through numerous small towns and also run through very rural parts of
the county. This adds many difficulties for CDOT and they tend to coordinate with the county and cities
transportation agencies in order to maintain those roads the best that they can. An interview with Janet
Lundquist, the transportation engineer for Weld County, made very clear that the Department of Public
Works has done a very good job of targeting accident hotspots within the county.80 This is an important, if
not biased, statement from the county. When suggesting recommendations for policy change it is
important to note that both Weld County Public Works and CDOT is doing all they can to create a safe
infrastructure within their limited budget. However, there are still priorities that must be made. Too many
accidents occur in rural areas leading to severe injury or fatalities. Because Weld County is such an
important area for economic development in the state, it is important that the most dangerous roads in the
county are being made as safe as possible. Focusing on SH 60 and SH66 will allow CDOT to target
dangerous roads in order to reduce serious crashes and bring the county and state closer to the national
goal of zero deaths.
78
“Colorado’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan.” January 22, 2014. http://www.drivesmartweldcounty.com/assets/b6D8C90207Cda3a39adC.pdf.
79
Zegeer, Charles, Robert Deen, and Jesse Mayes. “The Effect of Lane and Shoulder Widths on Accident Reductions on Rural, Two-Lane Roads.”
Kentucky Transportation Center Research Reports, October 1, 1980. http://uknowledge.uky.edu/ktc_researchreports/811.
80
Lundquist, Janet. Weld County Accident Hot Spots and Actions Taken. Telephone, March 18, 2015.
L o b a t o | 24
Transportation Department Constraints :
State and Local Authorities Pinching Pennies
Due to financial constraints, CDOT faces a financial struggle. Increasing demands on pavement
quality, bridge building, and maintenance improvements are exceeding the department’s revenue and
make safety specific projects one of many goals that must be funded.81 With a current infrastructure grade
of C+ (according to the American Society of Civil Engineers) reducing fatalities is not the only priority
for CDOT. Pavement quality is also a concern. It would cost $9 mill over the next ten years to reach the
state’s pavement quality goal of a B.82 This number does not include the deficits that will occur to
maintain that pavement quality grade of B in future years. If those costs are taken into account there
would be another $292 million of deficit in the next ten years; or another $8.2 million annually.83 These
deficits are occurring to meet an adequate grade and requirement. These deficits are not creating a perfect
system which would cost the department even more. These financial constraints, paired with the pressure
to push forward safety initiatives makes CDOTs job very difficult. Priorities must be made and any policy
recommended to reduce crashes must be targeted with specific measurements of success and the
recommendations must run on a very limited budget.
Projected Maintenance and Infrastructure Strategies :
Working within the Framework
In order to recommend policy changes that are feasible for CDOT to implement, those
recommendations must work within the current framework and strategic plan of the department. CDOT
spends more than $585 million dollars a year to just maintain the current roads, suggesting any expansion
would take funds away from roads that are diminishing in quality and place the need to improvements to a
81
2014 Transportation Deficit Report. Colorado Department of Transportation, 2014. http://www.coloradodot.info/library/AnnualReports/2014-annualtransportation-deficit-report.pdf.
82
Ibid, 8.
83
Ibid, 19.
L o b a t o | 25
different area. In order to function in the most efficient way possible, CDOT created an Asset
Management Plan to monitor the way the department was managing its assets in order to be as efficient
and as effective as possible. Any recommendations need to fit in with the current maintenance plan. This
could mean combination with a surface management plan or a major bridge reconstruction that has been
scheduled and is feasible within the approved budget for that fiscal year.
The Future of Transportation:
Colorado Gas Tax Implications
Colorado has 88,266 miles of public roads and 70% of those roads are in poor or
mediocre condition.84 Currently, CDOT spends almost $500 million on just capital maintenance
and the need for maintenance is only growing. To fund the expansive tasks that CDOT must
complete, the department receives revenue from both federal dollars as well as local state dollars.
State dollars come primarily from a 22 cent gas tax that has not been raised in 21 years.85 That 22
cents is losing its purchasing power due to inflation and its share in the budget is shrinking as
people buy less fuel and cars are more efficient in their fuel use.
In 2014, the state gas tax made up almost 33% of revenue that CDOT received. This is a
huge amount and is an important target when looking at the long term fiscal sustainability of the
department. As one of the only revenue sources that is able to be managed inside the department
the fact that it is shrinking is an issue. 38% of the budget comes from federal dollars and is not
controlled by the state causing CDOT to rely on a shrinking funding source in order to make
strategic transportation decisions for the future.
There is not enough funding to support the current demand for infrastructure or any other
pressure that will occur in the future. This also puts CDOT’s funding at risk for if the governor,
84
“ASCE | 2013 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure | Grade Sheet: Economic Implications.” Accessed March 8, 2015.
http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/a/#p/grade-sheet/economic-implications.
85
Ibid
L o b a t o | 26
legislature, or taxpayers do not like the way their funds are being spent then their revenue source could
change in the next financial year. For CDOT, these policies have one chance to show positive results.
Road conditions, growing urban development, and much needed bridge repairs all put pressures onto
CDOT’s limited budget. The feasibility of implementation for any proposed or selected recommendation
needs to be considered in regards to CDOT’s limited budget.
Proposed Solutions
This analysis places its focus on roadway maintenance and the governmental efforts used to
reduce fatalities.86 When analyzing crash data, it is very easy for law enforcement and other analysts to
correlate types of car crashes with injury type (i.e. head on collisions and concussions). However while
some types of crashes can be correlated with injury type, this correlation becomes less clear when other
external factors such as health and car safety is taken into account.87 Due to this difficulty and after
understanding speeding and distracted driving as major contributing factors to Colorado’s crash records,
the following proposed solutions will be targeted to roadway maintenance in order to prevent these types
of crashes on SH 60 and SH 66. These recommendations would not take place along the entire highway.
Instead, they would only occur on the sections of each highway classified as rural. Because both
highways run through towns, the partnerships with the cities tend to mean that they have more consistent
maintenance and because they are in town, the speed limits tend to be slower. The sections of these
highways that cut through towns were not included in the accident rate calculations. These solutions will
not focus on preventing any kind of crash types. The proposed solutions will be the status quo, adding
rumble strips to the length of rural roads, and widening the shoulder on both sides of these two highways.
86
Albalate, Daniel, Laura Fernández, and Anastasiya Yarygina. “The Road against Fatalities: Infrastructure Spending vs. Regulation??” Accident
Analysis & Prevention 59 (October 2013): 227–39. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2013.06.008, 235.
87
Savolainen, Peter T., Fred L. Mannering, Dominique Lord, and Mohammed A. Quddus. “The Statistical Analysis of Highway Crash-Injury
Severities: A Review and Assessment of Methodological Alternatives.” Accident Analysis & Prevention 43, no. 5 (September 2011): 1666–76.
doi:10.1016/j.aap.2011.03.025.
L o b a t o | 27
-The Five Year Trend and Incident FluctuationsWhen reviewing crash statistics and trends from state and local transportation departments it is
very tempting to compare yearly percent changes. Meaning that the change from last year to this year
shows a “trend”. This isn’t necessarily the case. Instead, transportation departments like CDOT use a best
practice where crash trends are analyzed in 5 year blocks. This is to help eliminate any outlying data
points that could be attributed to bad weather or random circumstances that may not happen any other
year. That does not mean that yearly data points should not be looked at. It is possible that a one year rise
in fatalities could be the beginning of a trend but it cannot be known for certain until after five years. The
success of the following policy alternatives must be judged in five year increments as well. This is to
ensure that the safety benefits gained from these improvements actually provide long-term severe,
accident reduction. The proposed solutions for reducing accidents causing severe injuries and fatalities on
SH 60 and SH 66 include adding rumple strips to the sides of the highways or widening the highway
shoulders to 8 feet. These policy recommendations would take place on 3.64 miles of rural road on SH 60
and on 12.47 miles of rural road on SH 66.These two policy recommendations will be compared to the
current status quo of the highway conditions in order to determine which policy alternative results in the
largest Net Present Value (NPV).
-Status Quo: The Current Infrastructure TargetsContext
SH 60 and SH 66 hold the most dangerous sections of rural state highways in Weld County with
severe accident rates at 0.205 and 0.351 respectively. Currently, there are no plans to structurally change
either highway to provide increased safety measures. Minor surface treatments of SH 60 are planned in
2017 but the goal is to increase pavement quality and not to increase safety. This means, that it is likely
L o b a t o | 28
that either the same rate of accidents will occur over the coming years or that rate will increase as traffic
increased due to population growth that is projected by the U.S. Census.88
The rural sections of these two highways are narrow and average daily traffic ranges from 4,000 –
14,000 vehicles per day. 89 This level of traffic is not enough to require different safety measures than are
there now, but the severe accident rate is high enough to warn that other measures may be necessary to
increase safety. Whether or not those measures are worth implementing remains to be seen. Currently,
both of these highways’ rural sections have no rumble strips and no shoulders that measure 8 feet. In fact,
in some places the shoulder is only as wide as 2 inches. These safety standards are in line with current
surface standards but that does not mean that they can’t be improved.
Implementation Methods
The only implementation that is required of the status quo analysis, is the current maintenance
plan. Currently, CDOT’s approved projects list only has chip sealing scheduled for 2017 as part of the
current maintenance plan.90 Implementation of the status quo hopes that CDOT will maintain a B- road
grade while focusing on other areas where roads are in disrepair.91 It is useful to keep in mind that any
other recommendation besides the status quo will take away resources that either have already been
allocated or could be allocated to another part of the department. Because CDOT doesn’t have any
“extra” resources, making one road safer could put the safety of another road at risk and any other
recommendation must be financially worth the investment. Bids from contractors at the time of
construction will also help to keep prices low as they are competing for the business of the state and
offering those services at a low price.
88
89
Tribune, The Greeley. “Weld Public Safety Officials Address Spike in 2014 Fatal Vehicle Crashes, Step up Traffic Enforcement |
GreeleyTribune.com.” The Greeley Tribune. Accessed March 30, 2015. http://www.greeleytribune.com/news/14743566-113/weld-public-safetyofficials-address-spike-in-2014-fatal-vehicle.
Crash Rate Book 2012: Crashes and Rates on State Highways. CDOT Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch: Accident Data Management Unit,
2012.
90
“Approved Projects Lists — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT.” Folder. Accessed March 30, 2015.
https://www.codot.gov/projects/approved-projects-lists.
91
“2014 Annual Report — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT.” File. Accessed March 8, 2015.
https://www.codot.gov/library/AnnualReports/2014-annual-report/view.
L o b a t o | 29
Measurements of Success
Because the status quo recommendation does not suggest adding any more projects than are
already scheduled, the measurements of success would be determined by the rate of serious injuries and
fatalities occurring from accidents in the next five years. If these rates do not increase for these road
sections, then the current regulations and road management strategies have been proven effective. Crash
rates have been slowly declining throughout Colorado, but not for rural fatalities. This provides room for
improvement. It is possible that the current system will see reductions in fatalities due to external factors
such as car manufacturing improvements could have positive impacts upon these severe accidents as well.
However, relying on external factors does not align with CDOT and Weld County’s goals of zero deaths.
It is not likely that severe accident rates will reduce on their own without improvement to infrastructure,
however it is important to see if infrastructure improvements are financially feasible or financially worth
the benefits that might come as a result. The status quo could be the best recommendation especially for
an organization like CDOT that is already stretched very thin across all of their obligations and priorities.
-Policy Recommendation #1: Road Shoulder Rumble StripsContext
Rumble strips are divots placed in the center and on the edges of roads in order to bring a driver
back to attention if they are drifting out of their lane. This method has been used in Colorado and reports
by the Colorado Department of Transportation report upon their effectiveness in places around the state.
The use of rumble strips upon a 17 mile stretch of highway near Boulder, Colorado show that there was
around a 37% reduction in accidents after the implementation of these rumble strips.92 Rumble strips are
especially effective at reducing accidents that occur when cars depart from the road. They are generally
used to target distracted drivers as they alert the driver when they begin to drift to one side or another.93
92
Outcalt, William. Center Line Rumble Strips. Colorado Department of Transportation Research, August 2001.
file:///C:/Users/Taylor.Lobato/Downloads/centerline.pdf.
93
Ibid.
L o b a t o | 30
On rural roads, rumble strips are often placed to specifically target distracted drivers who fall
asleep and who using devices within a car. Rumble strips placed in the middle of the road also help to
inform the driver that they are drifting into the other lane and risking a head-on collision. Because
distracted driving and speeding have both been identified as major contributors to roadway crashes they
are a prime target for the recommendations listed here.94 Both target areas are a two-lane rural highways
where some of the biggest threats to drivers is a crash that takes them off the road, away from sight and
with the threat of hitting an object on the side of the road. This means that rumble strips on the outside of
the roadways would be most effective for the target areas. Some areas place rumble strips in the middle of
the road leading up to intersections to help reduce intersection crashes. In Weld County, the department
has made intersections a priority in reducing accidents and all intersections that cause a hotspot have had
warning rumble strips installed.95 To account for this, when determining the accident rates for SH 60 and
SH 66, no intersection construction was calculated in the stretch of highways identified.
There is the potential for some negative consequences associated with rumble strips.
Motorcyclists have the increase possibility to lose control if they were to drive on the strips.96 By not
putting the rumble strips down the center line of the road, there is less of a danger to motorcyclists and it
will be important to place these strips strategically in order to prevent harm from both automobile drivers
as well as motorcyclists. Transportation agencies across the country have done well creating best
practices that reduce as much external harm as possible. Placing rumble strips have not been shown to
increase severe crashes on rural two-lane highways and implementing this alternative would not cause
any sort of external severe crashes as a result of implementing this recommendation.
94
95
96
“Strategic Highway Safety.” CDOT Statewide Plan. Accessed March 16, 2015. http://coloradotransportationmatters.com/other-cdot-plans/strategichighway-safety/.
Lundquist, Janet. Weld County Accident Hot Spots and Actions Taken. Telephone, March 18, 2015.
Persaud, Bhagwant N., Richard A. Retting, and Craig A. Lyon. “Crash Reduction Following Installation of Centerline Rumble Strips on Rural TwoLane Roads.” Accident Analysis & Prevention 36, no. 6 (November 2004): 1073–79. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2004.03.002.
L o b a t o | 31
Implementation Methods
Adding rumble strips to the selected rural sections of SH 60 and SH 66 would not be outside of
the normal actions of CDOT. These rumble strips can be implemented through the regular maintenance
schedule and resurfacing or on their own through road retrofitting.97 Rumble strips have become attractive
projects for transportation agencies because they seem to be the most beneficial per unit cost and they are
relatively easy to install. Costing from $0.13 to $.87 per foot, the rumble strips will be placed during
normal maintenance of the road and can be maintained with the normal maintenance plan. Costs differ
depending upon the number of bids that come from construction companies; the more bids, the lower the
price. Construction costs also play into the price and will raise or lower depending upon demand.
Because safety is a primary concern for CDOT, it is important that these fixes occur as soon as
possible. The number of approved projects for CDOT projects are currently approved to year 2018,
however there is room for additions depending on project scope as well as budget constraints. The
recommendation for this project is that it occur in summer of 2016 in order to allow time for the bidding
process to occur and as construction projects occur during the summer months. This recommendation
does not cost an unrealistic amount and it comparatively easy to implement compared to other projects
such as total resurfacing and intersection design.98 Plus, construction occurring on a rural road will add
the benefit of the work being less disruptive to a large amount of traffic than it would on a heavy traffic
interstate or highly congested urban road.
Measurements of Success
There have been varying degrees of success when implementing these strategies. Colorado saw a
37% reduction in crashes when adding rumble strips on SH 199 in Boulder.99The Federal Highway
97
Guidance for the Design and Application of Shoulder and Centerline Rumble Strips. Washington, D.C: National Cooperative Highway Research
Program, 2009. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_641.pdf.
98
Ibid.
99
Outcalt, William. Center Line Rumble Strips. Colorado Department of Transportation Research, August 2001.
file:///C:/Users/Taylor.Lobato/Downloads/centerline.pdf.
L o b a t o | 32
Administration has calculated the range of accident and fatality reduction to be between 26% and 46%.100
This range is specifically calculated by calculating shoulder rumble strips on rural two-lane roads.
Because the 37% calculated by CDOT falls into this range it is assumed that this range can be used for
measurements of success. To stay in line with best practices the success of this recommendation must be
measured after five years in order to distinguish traffic trends from coincidences.101 A five year time
frame is also important to implement because it falls within the replacement or maintenance period of
these roads and the policy can be reassessed then as well.
-Policy Option #2: Shoulder MaintenanceContext
Shoulders are primarily used to help drivers avoid accidents; maneuver around debris, animals, or
other objects in the rod that could cause an accident; as well as create safe areas to pass other vehicles.
Specifically, wider edges and shoulder widths created for shoulder stabilization have been shown to
reduce crash rates by as much as 38%.102 Turf, gravel and paved shoulders are all options approved and
suggested by the Federal Highway Administration to expand shoulders on rural two-lane highways but
using paved shoulders provide the driver more control and fit in well to already scheduled road
maintenance.103 This makes them an attractive measure to help reduce automobile crashes on rural roads
that have lower traffic volume but where crashes become much worse if vehicles run off the side of the
road.
Shoulder widths vary from 2 inches to 11 feet. Different widths have varying effectiveness in
reducing crashes depending upon the types of roads that they are used with. The most effective shoulder
width for rural two-lane highways is a paved shoulder that extends 8 feet on either side of the road.104It is
100
101
“Rumble Strips and Rumble Stripes: General Information.” Federal Highway Administration, December 9, 2014.
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/pavement/rumble_strips/general-information.cfm.
“2014 Full Colorado Problem Identification (ID) Report — CDOT.” File. Accessed November 5, 2014.
http://www.coloradodot.info/programs/safety-data-sources-information/full-colorado-problem-id-2014/view.
102
Ibid.
103
Prediction of the Expecte Safety Performance of Rural Two-Lane Highways. McLean, VA: Federal Highway Administration, December 2000.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/99207/99207.pdf.
104
Bamzai, Radhika, Yongdoo Lee, and Zongzhi Li. “Safety Impacts of Highway Shoulder Attributes in Illinois,” April 2011.
https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/45840, i.
L o b a t o | 33
important to note that there are limitations with this policy option; wider will not eliminate crashes
completely. Instead, this policy recommendation is aimed at giving drivers more time to correct out of a
potential accident and if an accident still occurs the hope is that the wider shoulder will make the accident
less severe.
Shoulder widening is already used throughout the county to create safer roads. By using it as an
option here, this alternative becomes feasible for both the state and the County’s safety management plan.
For both SH60 and SH66 the recommendation would be to extend the shoulders to the complete
suggested shoulder width of 8 feet. The current widths for these two highways vary from 2 inches to 8
feet with corresponding measures of success for each width. However, the 8 feet widths occur in the
urban areas and not within the rural sections that are being analyzed here.
Implementation Methods
Like rumble strips, widening shoulders can occur within a road’s normal maintenance schedule.
However, it is more difficult and more costly especially when the shoulders are paved. While more
expensive, the actual long term maintenance of the shoulders ends up being comparable and the benefits
in accidents reduced are larger than those associated with other shoulder methods such as gravel or sod.105
Creating these types of recommendations are a little bit more intense than just retrofitting rumble strips,
but they do have increased benefits for not only reducing accidents but for reducing more types of
accidents than rumble strips do. The willingness to pay for roads with wider shoulders is also larger
because as drivers travel down roads with wider shoulders, they feel much safer than if they are driving
on narrower shoulders no matter the other safety measures that should be in place.
As mentioned, due to the massive amount of material used per foot and the labor it takes to
actually construct that amount of new roadway material is $14.09 per foot.106 Maintenance costs remain
much less as time goes on. This is especially true when compared to granular shoulders. Granular
105
106
Zegeer, C. V., R. Stewart, F. Council, and T. R. Neuman. “ROADWAY WIDTHS FOR LOW-TRAFFIC-VOLUME ROADS.” NCHRP Report, no.
362 (1994). http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=408237.
Paved Shoulders on Primary Highways in Iowa: An Analysis of Shoulder Surfacing Criteria, Costs, and Benefits. Office of Traffic and Safety of the
Iowa Department of Transportation, November 2001. http://www.intrans.iastate.edu/reports/pavedshoulder.pdf.
L o b a t o | 34
shoulders cost about twice as much to maintain once the infrastructure is in place. These types of
shoulders erode much more quickly and at a much higher level. It is suggested that this roadway
construction also takes place in year 2017 in order to allow time for the bidding process as well as for
preparation and warning of road closures.
Measurements of Success
The success of widening the shoulders of roads has varying success rates depending upon the
road type as well as the average daily traffic. The Federal Highway Administration and the Illinois
Transportation Depart report reports a range in the Accident Reduction Factor from 1.00 to 0.82 which is
about an 18% reduction at most of both serious injury and fatalities occurring on rural two-lane
highways.107 Again, the resulting accident rates will be measured for success after a five year period in
order to ensure traffic trends are permanent and due to the new policy put in place. Because this
alternative is the costlier of the two, it will be important to also gauge an increase in benefits of safety and
the willingness to pay of road users.
-Political ConsiderationsTraffic safety is not a hugely controversial issue, however it makes the news most often when the
budget is addressed comprehensively. At the state level, when the budget is allocated there tends to be a
battle between education funding and transportation funding. These two state budget priorities compete
for funds from a very limited pot. These policies should not lead to political debate between larger state
funding goals because they are meant to play into current CDOT strategies and their current allocation.
However, because CDOT’s funds are not unlimited and because these two highways have only one
scheduled maintenance update on the approved list, allocating funds to this project will take a project
away from a lower priority. While there may not be a statewide political discussion, more regional debate
may occur between different regional or county transportation agencies.
107
Bamzai, Radhika, Yongdoo Lee, and Zongzhi Li. “Safety Impacts of Highway Shoulder Attributes in Illinois,” April 2011.
https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/45840.
L o b a t o | 35
Cost Benefit Analysis
This memo includes a large quantitative component that will be highlighted in the memo. The
three alternatives will be judged upon their ability to reduce crash fatalities on rural, two-lane highways.
Best practices for CDOT include measurement after at least five years in order to distinguish actual
results and correlations from trends. Due to the construction that must occur to implement these policies,
is understood that the majority of costs will occur at the beginning of the process due to the necessary
construction that must occur to alter the roads. Economic and social costs and benefits will be considered
in order to analyze the broader impact of reduced highway fatalities upon local communities.108 In order
to produce the most feasible analysis, the costs and benefits will be included in CDOT’s current
maintenance plan. As rural roads are replaced, so will the chosen alternative be implemented. Because of
the financial strain upon CDOT the policy implementation must be spread out over an extended period of
time. That means, that overall success of the alternative cannot be judged until after completion of the
project.
-MethodologyApproach and Timeframe
Because the costs associated with these alternatives takes place in the upfront and initial
construction costs, the costs were calculated for the initial year. Even the maintenance costs listed in the
matrix occur from the previously approved job schedule listed on CDOTS’s website. This is to ensure that
the accurate upfront costs are considered. Because these alternatives can both be constructed within one
year, only one year was accounted for. The costs and benefits will accrue immediately after
implementation. This CBA matric is used to determine a policy choice before actual implementation.
While costs are subject due to change based upon construction costs and other variables, these initial costs
collected from transportation literature allow for a side by side comparison on what the costs and benefits
108
Blincoe, L, J., T.R. Miller, E Zaloshnja, and B.A. Lawrence. The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes. Washington, D.C:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, May 2014.
L o b a t o | 36
to implementing each policy are.109 Lifetime of these roads differ for each alternative depending upon
weather and other types of eroding practices, but the standard replacement rate is a minimum of 10 years
for each road. While it is vital to roadway safety to ensure that these roads are well taken care of and
maintained, it is not useful here to measure those ten year replacement costs. Instead, both costs and
benefits accrue immediately assuming that roads meet their highest accident reduction success rate. The
rate must stay similar for the next five years in order to be named a successful policy.
Stakeholders
The most obvious stakeholder in this analysis is the crash victim. These victims
and their family must pay the medical costs, the legal costs, insurance costs and
they directly experience the costs associated with the loss of quality of life.110
Crash Victim:
These stakeholders are also those that see direct benefit in their willingness to
pay in order to avoid the accident.
After the primary crash victim, society suffers from the victims’ severe injuries
Society:
and death. The economic and household loss of productivity effects the economy
in general and costs placed onto the insurance pool is also seen by society.111
CDOT is responsible for the construction and maintenance costs associated with
these alternatives. They do not suffer directly from the economic and social costs
of the crashes themselves but they do see costs by the actions taken to make the
road a much safer place. It can be argued that these stakeholders should be
CDOT:
weighed in order of their importance. However, because these costs are actual
numbers and the maintenance are actual costs seen on CDOT’s budget requests,
these values were not weighted for this analysis.
109
Ibid.
Blincoe, L, J., T.R. Miller, E Zaloshnja, and B.A. Lawrence. The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes. Washington, D.C:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, May 2014.
111
Ibid.
110
L o b a t o | 37
Evaluation and Criteria Selection
Each recommendation was valued upon its economic efficiency (i.e. the ability for each
alternative to reduce the most number of lives per dollar spent). Each alternative was compared with the
other alternative at a static percentage level of crash reduction. This is in order to compare the efficiency
of each alternative. These alternatives are then compared to the status quo where it is assumed that severe
injury and death rates will not diminish and provide any benefits to the stakeholders. This was done to
keep the independent variable of the status quo and to better understand how exactly intervention will
reduce the costs associated with each stakeholder. The net present value was taken at the end of the
analysis to see which alternative gained the most benefit compared to the dollar spend.
Future Cost Considerations
The current numbers in this cost-benefit analysis were taken from 2010 dollars and translated into
2015 dollars. It is very likely that inflation will raise these numbers by the implementation year of 2017.
These numbers were also adjusted for the Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) in order to
determine the yearly cost of the road. Because these roads have a ten year lifespan, it is important to
compare the yearly cost with the yearly benefits that come from the alternatives. For more information on
the WACC, please see the calculations in the Appendix. These costs can also fluctuate depending upon
the construction bids that occur. The more bids, the more competitive prices will be.
Cost and Benefit Values
The Cost-Benefit framework for this memo will be used to compare the current Colorado
highway system and evaluate which alternative of accident mitigation will be the most cost effective way
to reduce highway fatalities. In order to limit the scope of this analysis, a reduction in accidents and
severe injuries will be used as the measurement of success in determining the effectiveness of the
policy.112 These values were chosen from research done by the National Highway Traffic Safety
112
Blattenberger, Gail, Richard Fowles, and Peter D. Loeb. “Determinants of Motor Vehicle Crash Fatalities Using Bayesian Model Selection
Methods.” Research in Transportation Economics, The Economics of Transportation Safety, 43, no. 1 (July 2013): 112–22.
doi:10.1016/j.retrec.2012.12.004.
L o b a t o | 38
Association. These numbers are well researched, published, and updated in order to provide a broad
picture of costs and benefits associated with these deadly crashes throughout the U.S.113 These types of
accidents are more easily influenced by government policy and transportation department action which is
why they are the types that will be addressed in this framework. It is also important to note that this policy
analysis is based upon fatal crashes and severe injuries. This is due to the high variability of costs and
benefits that occur during different crash severity and the chosen inputs in this matrix were chosen using
averages of fatal costs/benefits associated with fatalities and severe injuries.114
There are both economic and societal costs that occur from fatal vehicle crashes. It is important
that transportation agencies understand both. This allows them to better understand how their policies
affect the public on a broader scale.115 All economic costs and benefit inputs were used because that is the
current measure for the industry when calculating the costs and benefits associated with transportation
policy.116
Cost and Benefit Inputs
Costs
Benefits
Economic Impacts
Medical care incurred after an accident for those
injured
Reducing crashes and severe injuries lessons the
people that are receiving medical costs and less
serious injuries lessens what people have to pay for
medical costs
EMS: Emergency medical services are required for
immediate care after accident and transport to the
hospital
Reduction in severe accidents lessens the likelihood
that EMS services will be needed
Insurance costs must be paid by all involved in the
The less serious the accident, the lower insurance
accident and those in the system who may have to pay
costs will be for the victims and others involved
due to increased rates
Legal costs occur for those involved in the accident or
Legal arguments are less likely to occur if accidents
for those who had damaged property in an instance of
are reduced or if the accidents are less severe
legal action
Quality of life is reduced for those who were injured or The less a victim or others involved are injured, the
113
Blincoe,
J., T.R.who
Miller,
E Zaloshnja,
and B.A.
The Economic and
Societal
Impact
of Motor
forL, those
died
as the effect
ofLawrence.
the crash
better
their
life will
be Vehicle Crashes. Washington, D.C:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, May 2014.
114
Blincoe, L, J., T.R. Miller, E Zaloshnja, and B.A. Lawrence. The Economic and
Societal
Impact
of Motor
Vehicle
Washington,
Less
serious
injuries
mean
thatCrashes.
authorizes
will notD.C:
Congestion
productivity
which
occurs
National
Highway reduces
Traffic Safety
Administration,
May
2014. if a road
close down roads which results in less congestion and
115
Ibid, 2.is shut down due to the accident or accident clean-up
more productivity
116
Ibid, 9.
Property damage caused to the car or property off the Less severe accidents mean that there is less property
side of the road damaged by crash
damage
accident and those in the system who may have to pay
costs will be for the victims and others involved
due to increased rates
Legal costs occur for those involved in the accident or
Legal arguments are less likely to occur ifLaccidents
o b a t o | 39
for those who had damaged property in an instance of
are reduced or if the accidents are less severe
legal action
Quality of life is reduced for those who were injured or The less a victim or others involved are injured, the
for those who died as the effect of the crash
better their life will be
Less serious injuries mean that authorizes will not
Congestion reduces productivity which occurs if a road
close down roads which results in less congestion and
is shut down due to the accident or accident clean-up
more productivity
Property damage caused to the car or property off the Less severe accidents mean that there is less property
side of the road damaged by crash
damage
Decreased market productivity of those involved in the
crash who can no longer work due to injury or death
The fewer people that are incapacitated due to an
accident means that those people are able to be
productive in the workforce or at home
Household productivity is lessoned by those who
cannot do daily activities due to injury or death
Government Costs
Increased construction results in safer infrastructure
Construction costs are applied for maintenance and for
which allowed people to be safer on the road and
new construction of safety measures
avoid risk
-Cost-Benefit MatrixThe cost-benefit analysis that follows represents all of the costs that occur because of
accidents resulting in severe injuries and fatalities. Each stakeholder has costs that they must pay
due to these accidents. All data within the matrix was calculated in 2015 dollars in order to
present an accurate and real time cost of these road projects. Construction costs were weighted
by the WACC in order to compare yearly costs with yearly benefits. This is because the life of
the road is ten years and it is important to spread the costs out as such for accurate comparison.
The benefits are also calculated to represent the true costs of the alternatives. The Net Present
Value was also calculated in order to choose the alternative that provides the best policy option
for reducing severe crashes in Weld County.
L o b a t o | 40
-Cost-Benefit Matrix*Costs
Stakeholder & Standing
Status Quo
Rumble Strips
Shoulder Increase
$8,105,705
$17,588
$1,524,321
$1,898,104
$100,462,683
$5,106,594
$11,080
$960,322
$1,195,806
$63,291,491
$6,646,678
$14,422
$1,249,943
$1,556,446
$82,379,400
$7,216
$280,702
$4,546
$176,842
$5,917
$230,176
$5,325,916
$1,627,576
$6,932,145
$2,118,433
$3,402,277
$1,088,729
$3,402,277
$1,088,729
$3,402,277
$1,088,729
$0
$0
$127,824,615
$11,378
$38,759
$82,241,316
$194,859
$663,807
$106,483,231
Economic Impact
Crash Victim
Medical Care
EMS
Insurance Costs
Legal Costs
Quality of Life
External Economic Costs-Society
Congestion
Property Damage
Productivity Costs
Market Productivity
Household Productivity
Highway Maintenance
Major Rehabilitation SH60
Minor Rehabilitation SH60
Highway Construction Costs
SH 60 (3.64 mile section/19,219.2 feet)
SH 66 (12.4 mile section/65,472 feet)
Total Costs
$8,453,835
$2,583,454
Government Roadway Costs
Benefits
Stakeholder & Standing
Status Quo
Rumble Strips
Shoulder Increase
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,999,111
$6,507
$563,999
$702,299
$37,171,193
$1,459,027
$3,166
$274,378
$341,659
$18,083,283
$0
$0
$2,670
$103,860
$1,299
$50,526
Economic Impact
Crash Victim
Medical Care Savings
EMS
Insurance Costs
Legal Costs
Quality of Life
External Economic Benefits-Society
Congestion
Property Damage
Productivity Benefits
Market Productivity
Household Productivity
Value of Risk Reduction Death
Value of Risk Reduction Severe Injury
Total Benefits
Net Present Costs
Net Present Benefit
Net Present Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
-$127,824,615
$0
-$127,824,615
$3,127,919
$955,878
$1,909,292
$101,269
$47,643,996
-$82,241,316
$47,643,996
-$34,597,320
$1,521,690
$465,022
$928,845
$49,266
$23,178,160
-$106,483,231
$23,178,160
-$83,305,071
*The matrix presented to you here shows the simplified sum of each alternative. Please see the Appendix for a more detailed CBA as well as for the calculations used
in creating this matrix.
L o b a t o | 41
Discussion
By reviewing the above chart, each policy alternative shows the costs of each policy outweighing
the benefit. The alternative that is most economically efficient is adding rumble strips to the shoulder of
rural stretches of SH 60 and SH 66. This alternative would result in a NPV of over $34 million in
economic and social costs. This is quite a substantial number which points to the importance of reducing
highway fatalities and severe injuries. The other two alternatives, shoulder widening and the status quo,
show costs that ate over twice and three times the costs of the rumble strip alternative, respectively. This
makes adding rumble strips the most economically efficient alternative. Adding rumble strips not only
present the highest NPV but it also represents the highest rate in accident reduction, 37%. This is good as
not only does this option cost less, but it is also saving more lives.
It may seem odd that these two alternatives are being compared to one another when they have
such differences in costs. One of the reasons that these both were chosen is because they have both been
proved to see more benefits in crash reductions than they do costs. However, in this case, the shoulder
maintenance alternative was much more expensive and the benefits did not come close to outweighing
that cost. This is due to the low traffic volume on these rural roads. On more congested urban roads, the
benefits would be much greater and seem more comparable as the percentage of crashes decreased would
be dramatically higher.
-Sensitivity AnalysisSimplified Sensitivity Analysis
Original Number of Serious Injuries
17
Original Number of Fatalities
2
Percentage Decrease in Accidents Number of Serious Injuries Number of Fatalities
27%
37%*
47%
12.75
10.71
9.01
1.46
1.26
1.06
Net Present Costs Incurred
from Accidents
Net Present Benefits Incurred
from Rumble Strip Installation
Net Present Value
$96,648,218
$82,241,316
$69,907,955
$35,321,484
$47,643,996
$52,779,270
-$61,326,734
-$34,597,320
-$17,128,685
*Chosen Alternative
Discussion:
This sensitivity analysis shows a very basic analysis of the net present values of implementing
rumble strips at different rates of success. For the sake of simplification and in order to stay in line with
L o b a t o | 42
success ranges from different transportation agencies, ten percent increments were chosen. While all
results proved to have more monetized costs than benefits, the effort to making these roads safely is very
important. 37% is the chosen rate for the alternative in the cost benefit analysis. But, because fatalities
and injuries fluctuate every year, these different percentages are quite likely to occur at some point. These
different percentages of success translate to about two serious injuries and 0.20 fatalities per ten percent
difference. This small number corresponds with less traffic associated with rural roads. These numbers
could change quite drastically on more populated urban roads. While the number of actual fatalities and
injuries only changes lightly, the net present value presents quite a difference. This is important to
understand the differences in costs and benefits could change in average during the ten year life span
period.
-CBA Assumptions and LimitationsThe values from this CBA were collected through a variety of academic sources.117118119 The
numbers taken here are not specific to Weld County and the demographics of people who have crashed on
the designated highway areas. These values are assumed to be averages for all victims of these terrible
accidents. These numbers are used for comparative purposes and it is assumed that they are representative
enough of the entire population that they can be used to represent Weld County specifically. Future costs
also present another limitation. Because the implementation year for these alternatives is in 2017, these
costs are subject to change because of construction costs as well as new social benefits of lives saved and
quality of life.
Weaknesses and Limitations
The weaknesses and limitations in this analysis are very important to address. As mentioned,
using data to determine crash types as well as crash causes is very difficult. Variables surrounding
117
Miller, T., J. Viner, S. Rossman, N. Pindus, W. Gellert, J. Douglass, A. Dillingham, and G. Blomquist. “THE COSTS OF HIGHWAY CRASHES.
FINAL REPORT,” June 1991. http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=355938.
118
Rizzi, Luis I., and Juan de Dios Ortúzar. “Estimating the Willingness‐to‐Pay for Road Safety Improvements.” Transport Reviews 26, no. 4 (July 1,
2006): 471–85. doi:10.1080/01441640600602302.
119
Blincoe, L, J., T.R. Miller, E Zaloshnja, and B.A. Lawrence. The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes. Washington, D.C:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, May 2014.
L o b a t o | 43
individual road users is difficult to calculate and data is not available for a variety of reasons. Those
reasons include accuracy of individual/police reporting, access to medical records, individual risk taking
and recorded/measured psychological behavior is usually not available.120 Sampling size makes it very
difficult to analyze variables associated with vehicle accidents. When analyzing rural roads this limitation
becomes very prominent. However, standard research is still able to analyze this data by using fixed
parameters and fixed variables that are most consistent with the data and outcomes.121 For these reasons
this memo focuses on road maintenance policies in order to reduce severe accidents and fatalities. While
these are broader variables, it is general enough to include data about traffic accidents in Colorado, and it
is easily targeted by the alternatives presented.
The limitations of policy in any topic is important to remember. It is not likely that policy will
ever eliminate roadway fatalities. There are too many individual health concerns as well as too many
external variables that affect humans that are not under control of the government; such as weather and
accidents caused by animals. Other risk factors associated with human behavior are their responses to
policies. For example, just because a road user wears their seatbelt, it does not mean that their drive is less
likely to result in a fatal or severe injury. Risk aversion could play a part in causing other risk factors. For
example, if a driver knows that a rumble strip will alert them of going off the road it may cause them to
play with their radio or text more often because they believe that they will be able to adjust if they begin
to drift.122 This is important information to consider when designing public policy, because if regulations
were enacted to require seatbelt use (while still likely to reduce injury severity in controlled
environments) the seatbelts will be less likely to protect a demographic that has a high crash rate due to
risk taking activities such as drag racing or drunk driving. Understanding these limitations is important
because it helps expectations become more realistic. CDOT’s goal may be to move to zero fatalities, but
120
121
122
Savolainen, Peter T., Fred L. Mannering, Dominique Lord, and Mohammed A. Quddus. “The Statistical Analysis of Highway Crash-Injury
Severities: A Review and Assessment of Methodological Alternatives.” Accident Analysis & Prevention 43, no. 5 (September 2011): 1666–76.
doi:10.1016/j.aap.2011.03.025, 1667.
Ibid.
Ibid.
L o b a t o | 44
if that goal is never met it does not mean that CDOT did not do their job. Instead, it could provide insights
into the limits of public policy.
-AssumptionsWhen analyzing improvement costs, best practices should be taken into account but to remain
consistent, assumptions must be made that assume all road improvements will use the same process. This
will be under the current processes that CDOT and other transportation agencies use. For cost
effectiveness, this memo does not touch on individual construction companies or surface brands and
instead leaves that bid process up to the department.
It was mentioned earlier that implementing these roadway maintenance would be relatively easy
as budgets are flexible and the costs could be transferred from other roadway projects. There are always
political debates when resources and priories are chosen and while this option is common and viable,
there are always unforeseen factors and situations that could prevent that from occurring. While 2017 is
the recommended implementation date that could very well change depending upon CDOT’s strategies.
-Technology FuturesBoth the government and auto producers want vehicles to be as safe as possible. New safety
requirements by the federal government could make car to car and car to infrastructure communication
more likely which would hopefully reduce these accidents my more. It may even render these alternatives
unnecessary. The hope for new technology is an exciting prospect, but it is also not likely to occur on a
broad level before 2017 which means that this analysis is still relevant and useful.
L o b a t o | 45
Strategic Recommendation
Simplified Cost-Benefit Analysis
Stakeholder & Standing
Net Present Costs
Net Present Benefit
Net Present Value
Status Quo
Rumble Strips
Shoulder Increase
-$127,824,615
$0
-$127,824,615
-$82,241,316
$47,643,996
-$34,597,320
-$106,483,231
$23,178,160
-$83,305,071
Reducing highway fatalities and severe injuries has been identified as a priority at the national,
state, and local level. These severe accidents cause great costs to individuals and society all the while
making one of our most important infrastructure systems unsafe. Because these accidents tend to occur in
rural areas, sections of SH 60 and SH 66 were chosen to compare possible policy alternatives. After an
analysis of the costs and benefits of each alternative the policy choice with the highest NPV was adding
shoulder rumble strips to the identified road sections. By adding these rumble strips, research shows that
these severe crashes can be reduced by 37% which is more than the other alternative.123 Not only is this
option more economically efficient, but it also is relatively easy to implement and it can be done to the
current infrastructure without adding too much disruption on the road.
Rumble strips are commonly used by transportation agencies all over the county. The reason for
choosing rumble strips is usually that they are cheaper per foot. However, this analysis shows that not
only are they cheaper by the foot, but they also produce the most amount of savings and compared to
widening shoulders the reasons to choose rumble strips are numerous. Saving lives on rural roads is
important if Colorado wants to be on course with national goals. Implementing rumble strips on these two
highways won’t reduce all fatalities and accidents but it is a start. These two dangerous roads can be the
beginning of safety efforts across the state. By targeting problem areas like SH 60 and SH 66 in Weld
County, they just might be on their way to achieving the goal of Zero Deaths.
123
Outcalt, William. Center Line Rumble Strips. Colorado Department of Transportation Research, August 2001.
file:///C:/Users/Taylor.Lobato/Downloads/centerline.pdf.
L o b a t o | 46
Appendix:
Definitions:
G e n e r a l D e f i n i t i o n s 124
MVMT or VMT:
The amount of vehicles traveled by a vehicle or vehicles, usually in million
vehicle miles traveled.
Arterials:
Carry longer-distance traffic flow for regional, intercommunity and major
community purposes. The primary difference between freeways and major
arterials is access; freeways have fully controlled accesses with no at grade
intersections, while arterials include limited at-grade intersections.
Collectors:
link local roads with the arterial road system. Both mobility and access are of
equal importance on these roadways. Travel speeds and volumes are moderate and
distances traveled are short to medium.
C o s t - B e n e f i t I n p u t D e f i n i t i o n s 125
Congestion Costs:
The value of travel delay, added fuel usage, greenhouse gas and criteria pollutants
that result from congestion that results from motor vehicle crashes.
Economic Costs:
The monetary impact of traffic crashes resulting from goods and services
expended to respond to the crash, treat injuries, repair or replace damaged
property, litigate restitution, administer insurance programs, and retrain or replace
injured employees. Economic costs also include the health and environmental
impacts that result from congestion, the value of workplace and household
productivity that is lost due to death and injury, and the value of productivity and
added travel time that is incurred by uninvolved motorists due to congestion from
traffic crashes.
124
General definitions were taken from the Colorado Department of Transportation and Weld County Department of Public Works’ definitions of traffic
terms
125
All cost/benefit definitions were taken directly from the National Highway Safety Administration’s report on The Economic and Societal Impact Of
Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010
L o b a t o | 47
Emergency Services:
Police and fire department response costs.
Household Productivity:
The present value of lost productive household activity, valued at the
market price for hiring a person to accomplish the same tasks.
Insurance Administration: The administrative costs associated with processing insurance claims
resulting from motor vehicle crashes and defense attorney costs.
Legal Costs:
The legal fees and court costs associated with civil litigation resulting from
traffic crashes.
Market Productivity:
The present discounted value (using a 3-percent discount rate for 2010
dollars which was then converted into 2015 dollars using the CPI index) of
the lost wages and benefits over the victim’s remaining life span.
Medical Care:
The cost of all medical treatment associated with motor vehicle injuries
including that given during ambulance transport. Medical costs include
emergency room and inpatient costs, follow-up visits, physical therapy,
rehabilitation, prescriptions, prosthetic devices, and home modifications.
Property Damage:
The value of vehicles, cargo, roadways and other items damaged in traffic
crashes.
Travel delay:
The value of travel time delay for people who are not involved in traffic
crashes, but who are delayed in the resulting traffic congestion from these
crashes.
Vocational Rehabilitation: The cost of job or career retraining required as a result of disability caused
by motor vehicle injuries.
Workplace Costs:
The costs of workplace disruption that is due to the loss or absence of an
employee. This includes the cost of retraining new employees, overtime
required to accomplish work of the injured employee, and the
administrative costs of processing personnel changes.
L o b a t o | 48
Willingness-to-Pay:
The willingness-to-pay determines the economic benefit and monetized
benefit of peoples’ want to avoid risk or avoid injury.
Weighted Average
Cost of Capital:
Calculation of a rate that discounts the price of capital projects to be spread
over the life of the project. This is used even if all original costs are paid up
front at original construction.
Moral Hazard of Automobile Accidents :
While automobile accidents are not a market failure on their face, there are parts of the process
and consequences that have been debates as a market failure. For example, owning automobile insurance
and taking more risks when driving has been a debated topic.126 Research reports that drivers who own
insurance, more specifically no-fault insurance, incentivizes those drivers to engage in more risky
behavior.127 If the cost is less to the individual drivers, driving safe may have less benefits and therefore
lead to more risky behavior ending in more crashes. In fact, research shows that there is about a two
percent increase in fatalities for each percentage decrease in uninsured drivers.128
While this memo does not directly target accidents occurring by those with insurance, the hope is
that the general reduction in accidents will also help to reduce this market failure. While people may be
more likely to participate in risky behavior, that does not mean that their want to be in an accident
increases. Generally, people do not want to injure themselves and by reducing accidents through the
construction of rumble strips or wider shoulders the chance for a moral hazard to occur is less likely. The
market failure is being indirectly targeted which adds benefit to these alternatives.
126
127
128
Cohen, Alma, and Rajeev Dehejia. The Effect of Automobile Insurance and Accident Liability Laws in Traffic Fatalities. Working Paper. National
Bureau of Economic Research, April 2003. http://www.nber.org/papers/w9602.
Ibid.
Cohen, Alma, and Rajeev Dehejia. The Effect of Automobile Insurance and Accident Liability Laws in Traffic Fatalities. Working Paper. National
Bureau of Economic Research, April 2003. http://www.nber.org/papers/w9602.
L o b a t o | 49
National Trends
N a t i o n a l T r e n d s : F a t a l i t y a n d F a t a l i t y R a t e b y Y e a r 129
The chart below shows a decrease in both fatality numbers and fatality rates per 100m VMT from
years 1989 to 2013. Nationally, our roads are getting safer on a national level, but there is still room to
continue.
The chart below shows injury trends over the past 50 years from 1964 to 2012. While fatalities
have continued to decrease, injuries have flattened out and remain a large concern. Because severe
injuries cause large costs to incur, reducing these injuries is an important part of the transportation injury.
129
“ASCE | 2013 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure | Grade Sheet: Economic Implications.” Accessed March 8, 2015.
http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/a/#p/grade-sheet/economic-implications.
L o b a t o | 50
State Trends
S t a t e F a t a l i t y T r e n d s 130
State Fatality and Serious Injury Trends
This chart shows historic numbers of state fatalities and serious injuries. SHSP refers to the
Strategic Highway Safety Plan that was integrated by CDOT to make highways safer in Northern
Colorado.
T y p e s o f F a t a l i t i e s a n d S e r i o u s I n j u r i e s 131
130
“2014 Annual Report — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT.” File. Accessed March 8, 2015.
https://www.codot.gov/library/AnnualReports/2014-annual-report/view.
131
“Colorado’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan.” January 22, 2014. http://www.drivesmartweldcounty.com/assets/b6D8C90207Cda3a39adC.pdf.
L o b a t o | 51
The following chart shows types of accidents that have occurred due to different factors. Note
specifically the roadway departures which is the main factor that these alternatives will effect.
CDOT’s Zero Death Campaign
During the creation of this policy memo, CDOT released a controversial advertisement to help
encourage safety on the roads. Marketed as a “Towards Zero Death” Campaign (in line with the national
standard) shows a video of a young couple and their young toddler hearing that Colorado fatality count is
at 480 from a scientist. The couple thinks that is not “that many”. The scientist sees the count go up by
one, and the toddler disappears.132 This add has been considered shocking and is part of a campaign
introduced by Governor Hickenlooper. This campaign shows the commitment by the State to promote
zero fatalities and stay in line with the national strategy.
132
“CDOT - Zero Deaths - YouTube.” Accessed April 6, 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVKUjWHn8pQ.
L o b a t o | 52
Weld County Trends
Weld County has identified severe traffic accidents as a problem and reducing those fatalities as a
priority. “Drive Safe Weld County” was created to help promote roadway safety and to educate the public
on the importance of practicing safe driving. A snapshot of the group’s website is listed below.
Weld County continues to have some of the highest fatality rates in the state.133 Not only is this high rate
an issue, but the growing population and important agriculture and energy industries located there need
safe routes to transport their goods. Weld County is located in a strategic location and many of its
highways connect important urban areas. The vast amount of rural roads is also important to target as the
state moves towards zero deaths. For these reasons, this county was chosen to be the target of this
analysis.
The future of transportation in this county will be extremely interesting. SH 60 and SH 66 are not
the only roads that need to be made safer. However, because the oil and gas industry sees many of these
roads as vital to their business, they have taken measures to help fund the maintenance of these roads.
This is another possible opportunity for the future. Weld County and CDOT may be able to find
133
“2014 by County — CDOT.” File. Accessed October 30, 2014. http://www.coloradodot.info/library/traffic/traffic-manuals-guidelines/safety-crashdata/fatal-crash-data-city-county/fatal-crashes-by-city-and-county/county-fatals-2014/view.
L o b a t o | 53
partnerships in locations throughout the state in order to keep the roads safe as well as stay financially
solvent enough to continue to survive.
Driving on State Highway 60 and State Highway 66
SH 60
SH 60
State Highway 60 and State Highway 66 are very typical rural roads that are used as transport between
major highways and small towns. SH 60 has about 16 miles of rural road that serves agricultural
homesteads around the area. It connects to major SH 85 to Interstate 25 and passes through mostly
L o b a t o | 54
farming land and the towns of Johnstown and Milliken. A narrow,
two lane road, it has almost no shoulder and it sees about 4,000 cars a
day. This is quite a large number of cars for this small road. The
pavement seems to be in relatively good conditions but it is easy to
see how traveling too quickly or not paying attention could easily
cause the driver to lose control and move into incoming traffic or get
pulled into the shoulder.
State Highway 66 is similar to SH 60. It also connect SH 85
and Interstate 25 but it travels through all farm and grazing land as
well as no urban areas. It is narrow with limited shoulders and also a
SH 60 near SH85 intersection.
Photo taken by author.
couple tight turns. Lanes are slightly wider and there is almost double
the amount of traffic which in places reaches almost 14,000 vehicles per day. Visibility can be limited in
the dark and fences and numerous hard to see intersections could cause problems. It is desolate and it
would take a long time for emergency vehicles to reach it. It could also take an extended period of time
for someone to come upon an accident or to walk and find help. This is especially true at night. Both
highways have moderate mobile service and could sustain emergency phone calls.
SH 66 on pull off area near SH85 intersection. Photo taken by author.
L o b a t o | 55
C a l c u l a t i o n o f I n j u r y a n d F a t a l i t y R a t e s o n W e l d C o u n t y S t a t e H i g h w a y s 134
Fatality and Injury Rates on Weld County Rural Roads
Rural 2-Lane MP (milepost)- MP (milepost)- Section Length
Average
Fatality Rate Injury Rate Total Rate
Fatality Injury Total
Highway Name
Begin
End
(miles)
Daily Traffic
(per million) (per million) (per million)
014C
142.18
216
73.82
3,551
0
4
4
0.000
0.042
0.042
147
152.15
5.15
6,400
0
2
2
0
0.17
0.17
152.16
153.21
1.05
4,703
0
1
1
0
0
0
167
176.05
9.05
1600
0
1
1
0
0
0
176.06
185.99
9.93
1499
0
2
2
0
0.37
0.37
034A
98.84
143
44.16
21370.6
1
8
9
0.434
0.023
0.028
98
98.83
0.83
47000
0
1
1
0
0.07
0.07
98.84
100.81
1.97
37000
0
2
2
0
0.08
0.08
117.25
119.17
1.92
11001
0
2
2
0
0.25
0.25
119.18
124.54
5.36
6552
0
3
3
0
0.25
0.25
144.46
135.61
-8.85
5300
1
0
1
7.19
0
0.0719
052A
7.2
55
47.8
11599
3
12
15
3.126
0.059
0.091
4.67
10.18
5.51
14997
2
9
11
6.62
0.3
0.3662
15.67
18.43
2.76
11000
1
2
3
9
0.18
0.27
18.44
19.86
1.42
8800
0
1
1
0
0.21
0.21
060B
3.93
20.2
16.27
4101
0
5
0
0.000
0.205
0.205
16.56
20.2
3.64
4101
0
5
5
0
0.55
0.55
066B
38.92
51.39
12.47
9949
2
12
14
8.551
0.265
0.351
38.92
42.73
3.81
13999
1
3
4
4.93
0.15
0.1993
42.74
44.91
2.17
12000
0
3
3
0
0.34
0.34
44.92
47.9
2.98
6502
0
3
3
0
0.43
0.43
47.9
51.39
3.49
7295
1
3
4
10.75
0.32
0.4275
071F
205.53
232.9
27.37
630
0
1
1
0.000
0.159
0.159
225.17
232.9
7.73
630
0
1
1
0
0.57
0.57
076A
25.15
60
34.85
12990.5
0
16
16
0.000
0.097
0.097
25.15
31.47
6.32
17000
0
1
1
0
0.03
0.03
31.48
34.4
2.92
16000
0
1
1
0
0.06
0.06
34.41
43.99
9.58
11943
0
3
3
0
0.07
0.07
44
47.96
3.96
11000
0
2
2
0
0.13
0.13
49.24
58.99
9.75
11000
0
6
6
0
0.15
0.15
59
63.87
4.87
11000
0
3
3
0
0.15
0.15
085C
236.03
265.76
29.73
18699
0
30
30
0.000
0.148
0.148
238.32
241.58
3.26
21000
0
6
6
0
0.24
0.24
243
244.2
1.2
19000
0
1
1
0
0.13
0.13
244.21
246.2
1.99
17000
0
8
8
0
0.65
0.65
246.21
250.64
4.43
17000
0
5
5
0
0.19
0.19
250.65
251.79
1.14
21000
0
1
1
0
0.1
0.1
251.8
258.59
6.79
17893
0
6
6
0
0.14
0.14
258.6
261.86
3.26
18000
0
3
3
0
0.14
0.14
085L
265.85
309.54
43.69
4658
0
7
7
0.000
0.094
0.094
273
275.58
2.58
9800
0
1
1
0
0.11
0.11
276.11
279.61
3.5
6300
0
1
1
0
0.13
0.13
280.83
283.6
2.77
4600
0
1
1
0
0.22
0.22
283.61
284.17
0.56
3806
0
1
1
0
1.13
1.13
284.18
288.52
4.34
3500
0
1
1
0
0.18
0.18
293.15
302.21
9.06
2300
0
1
1
0
0.13
0.13
302.22
309.54
7.32
2300
0
1
1
0
0.16
0.16
119C
59.48
63.7
4.22
34145
0
6
6
0.00
0.11
0.11
61.02
63.7
2.68
34145
0
6
6
0.18
0.18
0.1818
392B
105.44
141.53
36.09
3474.25
1
7
8
0.536
0.153
0.158
108
109.25
1.25
6400
0
1
1
0
0.35
0.35
115.4
117.6
2.2
4400
0
3
3
0
0.86
0.86
121.59
130.99
9.4
2001
1
2
3
14.48
0.29
0.4348
132
141.58
9.58
1096
0
1
1
0
0.26
0.26
L o b a t o | 56
T e r m s : 135
MP
The milepost location of the section terminus as described in the
aforementioned Colorado Roadway Information System (CORIS)
Report.
Section Length
The distance in miles (to two decimal places) between the indicated
section terminus and the previous section terminus. (Note that this
distance is not necessarily the same as the difference in mile points of
the two section termini.) The limits of a section of highway as used in
the CORIS. These limits have been established at State Highway
Junctions, urban limits, city limits, county lines, Engineering Region
Boundaries, construction projects, and other points where there are
material changes in traffic volumes.
MVMT
Million Vehicle Miles Traveled (MVMT)
Average Daily Traffic
AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic, the average number of vehicles
using a given highway section in one day.
F o r m u l a s a n d C a l c u l a t i o n s : 136
Crashes per
million vehicle-miles:
M = (365)(Avg. Daily Traffic)(Section Length)
Injury Rate:
The number of fatality-producing crashes per 100 million vehicle miles
of travel computed from:
Injury Crash Rate = (# of injury crashes) (1,000,000)
M
134
135
136
Crash Rate Book 2012: Crashes and Rates on State Highways. CDOT Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch: Accident Data Management Unit,
2012.
Crash Rate Book 2012: Crashes and Rates on State Highways. CDOT Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch: Accident Data Management Unit,
2012. file:///C:/Users/Taylor.Lobato/Downloads/2012_Accident_and_Rates_Book%20(2).pdf.
Crash Rate Book 2012: Crashes and Rates on State Highways. CDOT Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch: Accident Data Management Unit,
2012. file:///C:/Users/Taylor.Lobato/Downloads/2012_Accident_and_Rates_Book%20(2).pdf.
L o b a t o | 57
Fatal Crash Rate:
The number of fatality-producing crashes per 100 million vehicle miles
of travel computed from:
Fatal Crash Rate = (# of fatal crashes) (100,000,000)
M
Total Injury and
Fatality crash rates:
Total number or crashes resulting in injury or fatality per million vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) computed from:
Total Crash Rate = Injury Crash Rate + (0.01) Fatal Crash Rate
Crash Reduction Factor (CRF):
In order to determine the success of policy alternatives. The crash reduction rate for each
alternative was translated into the crash reduction factor for consistency and accuracy. The US
Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration uses the following calculation to
determine their crash modification factors. The CRF is commonly used in the field of traffic safety and is
calculated by a simple mathematical formula:
CMF = 1 - (CRF/100)
For example, if a particular countermeasure is expected to reduce the number of crashes by 23% (i.e., the
CRF is 23), the CMF will be 1 - (23/100) = 0.77. On the other hand, if the treatment is expected to
increase the number of crashes by 23% (i.e., the CRF is -23), the CMF will be = 1 - (-23/100) = 1.23.137
Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC)
The WACC was used to bring construction costs of the road by discounting the costs to account
for the entire 10 year lifespan. This was done in order to compare the costs and benefits in the same
measurement of time. The WACC formula was collected from the Federal Highway Administration and
137
“Crash Reduction Factor.” US Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration, October 15, 2014.
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tools/crf/.
L o b a t o | 58
the equity and debt numbers were collected from CDOT’s bidding guidelines and best practices. Please
see the cost-benefit calculations for actual formula and use.
Equation:
WACC = [E/V x Re] + [D/V x Rd (1 - Tc)]
where:
Re = cost of equity
Rd = cost of debt
E = market value of the firm's equity
D = market value of the firm's debt
V=E+D
E/V = percentage of financing that is equity
D/V = percentage of financing that is debt
Tc = corporate tax rate (this was not used in the calculation as
CDOT is tax exempt.
R u m b l e S t r i p D i a g r a m s 138
138
“Rumble Strip and Rumble Stripes: Design and Construction.” Federal Highway Administration, February 2015.
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/pavement/rumble_strips/design-and-construction.cfm.
L o b a t o | 59
H i g h w a y S h o u l d e r D i a g r a m s 139
Both the rumble strip and shoulder guidelines show an example of what each alternative looks
like. The rumble strip does not directly represent the geography of SH60 and SH66. As for the shoulder
diagrams, the picture to the left shows an example of a road with a 4 food shoulder and another diagram
from the Federal Highway Administration on what a road construction project might look like.
139
Federal Highway Administration and the Iowa Department of Transportation building guidelines.
L o b a t o | 60
Detailed Cost Benefit Matrix
Costs
Stakeholder & Standing
Status Quo
Rumble Strips
Shoulder Increase
$8,105,705
$17,588
$1,524,321
$1,898,104
$100,462,683
$5,106,594
$11,080
$960,322
$1,195,806
$63,291,491
$6,646,678
$14,422
$1,249,943
$1,556,446
$82,379,400
$7,216
$280,702
$4,546
$176,842
$5,917
$230,176
$5,325,916
$1,627,576
$6,932,145
$2,118,433
$3,402,277
$1,088,729
$3,402,277
$1,088,729
$3,402,277
$1,088,729
$0
$0
$127,824,615
$11,378
$38,759
$82,241,316
$194,859
$663,807
$106,483,231
Economic Impact
Crash Victim
Medical Care
EMS
Insurance Costs
Legal Costs
Quality of Life
External Economic Costs-Society
Congestion
Property Damage
Productivity Costs
Market Productivity
Household Productivity
Highway Maintenance
Major Rehabilitation SH60
Minor Rehabilitation SH60
Highway Construction Costs
SH 60 (3.64 mile section/19,219.2 feet)
SH 66 (12.4 mile section/65,472 feet)
Total Costs
$8,453,835
$2,583,454
Government Roadway Costs
Benefits
Stakeholder & Standing
Status Quo
Rumble Strips
Shoulder Increase
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,999,111
$6,507
$563,999
$702,299
$37,171,193
$1,459,027
$3,166
$274,378
$341,659
$18,083,283
$0
$0
$2,670
$103,860
$1,299
$50,526
Economic Impact
Crash Victim
Medical Care Savings
EMS
Insurance Costs
Legal Costs
Quality of Life
External Economic Benefits-Society
Congestion
Property Damage
Productivity Benefits
Market Productivity
Household Productivity
Value of Risk Reduction Death
Value of Risk Reduction Severe Injury
Total Benefits
Net Present Costs
Net Present Benefit
Net Present Value
$0
$0
$0
$0
-$127,824,615
$0
-$127,824,615
$3,127,919
$955,878
$1,909,292
$101,269
$47,643,996
-$82,241,316
$47,643,996
-$34,597,320
$1,521,690
$465,022
$928,845
$49,266
$23,178,160
-$106,483,231
$23,178,160
-$83,305,071
L o b a t o | 61
D i s t r i b u t i o n o f S o u r c e o f P a y m e n t b y C o s t C a t e g o r y 140
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration provided the numbers for the cost-benefit
analysis as well as the chart above. Derived from peer reviewed journals, the economic and societal costs
repot was created by researchers at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. These costs were
combined and applied to crashes and fatalities within Colorado. These inputs came from journals such as
Trauma Stress, Transport Reviews, and other medical journals. 141The chart above shows who pays for
what percentage of each cost. As you can see, it is not always the crash victim. This is important to
consider when implementing public policy. This is why it is essential for government to act and try to
reduce fatalities and severe injuries.
140
141
Blincoe, L, J., T.R. Miller, E Zaloshnja, and B.A. Lawrence. The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes. Washington, D.C:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, May 2014. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/812013.pdf.
Ibid
L o b a t o | 62
Statistical Inputs:
Statistical Inputs
Stakeholder
Description
Input
Source
Weld County
Severe Injuries
Number of crashes resulting in victims with serious injuries in
Weld County occurring on rural sections of SH60
5
Colorado Department of Transportation, Crash Rates for
2012
Number of crashes resulting in victims with serious injuries in
Weld County occurring on rural section of SH66
12
Colorado Department of Transportation, Crash Rates for
2012
Weld County
Fatalities
Costs Associated with Injuries
Number of crashes resulting in fatalities in Weld County occurring
on rural sections of SH 60
0
Colorado Department of Transportation, Crash Rates for
2012
Number of crashes resulting in fatalities in Weld County occurring
on rural sections of SH 66
2
Colorado Department of Transportation, Crash Rates for
2012
$475,373/person
Federal Highway Administration, Economic and Societal
Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010
$920/person
Federal Highway Administration, Economic and Societal
Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010
$86,079/person
Federal Highway Administration, Economic and Societal
Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010
$98,168/person
Federal Highway Administration, Economic and Societal
Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010
$4,928,484/person
Federal Highway Administration, Economic and Societal
Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010
$15,092/person
Federal Highway Administration, Economic and Societal
Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010
$183/person
Federal Highway Administration, Economic and Societal
Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010
Costs Associated with Severe Injuries
ent Construction Costs
Economic Costs to
Society
Crash Victim
Economic Costs to
Society
Crash Victim
Medical costs incurred per person calculated from average
percentage of state, local and federal dollars. Costs were
calculated using average costs to different body parts and injury
type (i.e. head, neck, bone break, burn, etc.) as well as the type of
care that was needed for rehabilitation (i.e. hospital admissions,
inpatient care, follow-up costs, nursing home fees, etc.)
Emergency medical services (EMS) were calculated per person
from an average of the costs associated with emergency fire and
on scene response.
Overhead insurance rates published by providers were compared
to coded hospital costs and averaged. The breakdown of percent's
paid were 11.7 from private insurers, 3.6% by Medicare, and 6.8%
by Medicaid.
Legal costs include any dispute over medical claims, liability
claims, disability claims, Worker's Compensation, property damage
claims, etc.. Each cost was averaged from injury type and
severity.
Quality of life was taken from industry standards derived from
academics in the fields. Valuations included a quality-adjusted life
year and for non fatal injuries and the value of a statistical life for
fatal injuries. Values were averaged for accuracy
Accidents result in property damage of vehicles, roadways, and
other items. Their costs were averaged here.
Congestion costs were derived from value of travel delay and
environmental externalities and then averaged for each crash cost
and then divided by three as rural congestion costs are found to be
1/3 less than the average congestion costs.
Market productivity represents the lost wages and benefits lost.
$379,097/person
Household productivity is calculated by market value of hiring the
115254/person
person to accomplish the same tasks.
Costs Associated with Fatalities
Medical costs incurred per person calculated from average
percentage of state, local and federal dollars. Costs were
$12,182/fatality
calculated using average costs to different body parts and injury
type and fatality costs (i.e. head, neck, bone break, burn, etc.).
Emergency medical services (EMS) were calculated per person
from an average of the costs associated with emergency fire and
$971/fatality
on scene response.
Overhead insurance rates published by providers were compared
to coded hospital costs and averaged. The breakdown of percent's
$30,486/fatality
paid were 11.7 from private insurers, 3.6% by Medicare, and 6.8%
by Medicaid.
Federal Highway Administration, Economic and Societal
Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010
Federal Highway Administration, Economic and Societal
Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010
Federal Highway Administration, Economic and Societal
Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010
Federal Highway Administration, Economic and Societal
Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010
Federal Highway Administration, Economic and Societal
Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010
Legal costs include any dispute over medical claims, liability
claims, disability claims, Worker's Compensation, property damage
claims, etc.. Each cost was averaged from costs of fatalities.
$114,627/fatality
Federal Highway Administration, Economic and Societal
Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010
Quality of life was taken from industry standards derived from
academics in the fields. Valuations included the value of a
statistical life for fatal injuries. Values were averaged for accuracy
$8,339,229/fatality
Federal Highway Administration, Economic and Societal
Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010
$12,068/fatality
Federal Highway Administration, Economic and Societal
Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010
$2,052/fatality
Federal Highway Administration, Economic and Societal
Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010
Accidents result in property damage of vehicles, roadways, and
other items. Their costs were averaged here.
Congestion costs were derived from value of travel delay and
environmental externalities and then averaged for each crash cost
and then divided by three as rural congestion costs are found to be
1/3 less than the average congestion costs.
Market productivity represents the lost wages and benefits lost.
Household productivity is calculated by market value of hiring the
person to accomplish the same tasks.
Construction Costs
Weighted Average Cost of Capital Rate
$1,004,596/fatality
$312,069/fatality
3.925%
Major Rehabilitation SH60 (before WACC discounted)
$5,000,000
Minor Rehabilitation SH60 (before WACC discounted)
$1,600,000
Federal Highway Administration, Economic and Societal
Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010
Federal Highway Administration, Economic and Societal
Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010
Colorado Department of Transportation, Value of Money
Report, 2013
Colorado Department of Transportation, Approved Projects
List, 2017
Colorado Department of Transportation, Approved Projects
List, 2017
Colorado Department of Transportation, Outcalt Report &
Economic Costs to
Society
Government Construction Costs
other items. Their costs were averaged here.
Congestion costs were derived from value of travel delay and
environmental externalities and then averaged for each crash cost
and then divided by three as rural congestion costs are found to be
1/3 less than the average congestion costs.
Market productivity represents the lost wages and benefits lost.
Household productivity is calculated by market value of hiring the
person to accomplish the same tasks.
Construction Costs
Weighted Average Cost of Capital Rate
Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010
$2,052/fatality
$1,004,596/fatality
$312,069/fatality
3.925%
Major Rehabilitation SH60 (before WACC discounted)
$5,000,000
Minor Rehabilitation SH60 (before WACC discounted)
$1,600,000
Rumble Strip Cost
$0.87/foot
Shoulder Maintenance Cost
$14.09/foot
Risk
Avoidance
Values
Reduction in Severe Injuries and Fatalities
Benefits Associated with Injuries
Percentage and number of crashes reduced due to implementing
37% or 1.85 reduction in
rumble strip resulting in victims with serious injuries in Weld
serious injuries
County occurring on rural sections of SH60
Percentage and number of crashes reduced due to implementing
rumble strips resulting in fatalities in Weld County occurring on
0
rural sections of SH60
Percentage and number of crashes reduced due to implementing
18% or 0.09 reduction in
shoulder maintenance resulting in victims with serious injuries in
serious injuries
Weld County occurring on rural sections of SH60
Percentage and number of crashes reduced due to implementing
shoulder maintenance resulting in fatalities in Weld County
0
occurring on rural sections of SH60
Percentage and number of crashes reduced due to implementing
37% or 4.44 reduction in
rumble strips resulting in victims with serious injuries in Weld
serious injuries
County occurring on rural section of SH66
Percentage and number of crashes reduced due to implementing
37% or 2.16 reduction in
shoulder maintenance resulting in fatalities in Weld County
serious injuries
occurring on rural sections of SH 66
Percentage and number of crashes reduced due to implementing
18% or 0.74 reduction in
rumble strips resulting in fatalities in Weld County occurring on
fatalities
rural sections of SH 66
Percentage and number of crashes reduced due to implementing
18% or 0.36 reduction in
shoulder maintenance resulting in fatalities in Weld County
fatalities
occurring on rural sections of SH 66
Willingness-to-Pay values for reducing fatalities
Willingness-to-Pay values for reducing serious injuries
Federal Highway Administration, Economic and Societal
Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010
L o b a t o | 63
Federal Highway Administration, Economic and Societal
Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010
Federal Highway Administration, Economic and Societal
Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010
Colorado Department of Transportation, Value of Money
Report, 2013
Colorado Department of Transportation, Approved Projects
List, 2017
Colorado Department of Transportation, Approved Projects
List, 2017
Colorado Department of Transportation, Outcalt Report &
Accident Analysis & Prevention, Crash Reduction
Following Rumble Strip Installation
Iowa Department of Transportation, Office of Traffic and
Safety, 2001
Colorado Department of Transportation, Outcalt Report &
Accident Analysis & Prevention, Crash Reduction
Following Rumble Strip Installation
Colorado Department of Transportation, Outcalt Report &
Accident Analysis & Prevention, Crash Reduction
Following Rumble Strip Installation
Illinois Center for Transportation, Safety Impacts of
Highway Shoulders Report, 2011
Illinois Center for Transportation, Safety Impacts of
Highway Shoulders Report, 2011
Colorado Department of Transportation, Outcalt Report &
Accident Analysis & Prevention, Crash Reduction
Following Rumble Strip Installation
Colorado Department of Transportation, Outcalt Report &
Accident Analysis & Prevention, Crash Reduction
Following Rumble Strip Installation
Illinois Center for Transportation, Safety Impacts of
Highway Shoulders Report, 2011
Illinois Center for Transportation, Safety Impacts of
Highway Shoulders Report, 2011
$303,544/person
Transport Reviews, Estimating the Willingness to Pay, 2007
$136,850
Transport Reviews, Estimating the Willingness to Pay, 2007
The statistical inputs above were the base rate for the calculations that will follow. Most of these
monetized values were collected from the Federal Highway Administration and other transportation
research in order to provide the most accurate information available. Medical costs were derived from
peer reviewed journals such as Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and the
Journal of Healthcare Finance. Other transportation related economic costs were taken from journals such
as Transport Reviews, Injury Control and Safety Promotion, and the Journal of the American Medical
Association.142
For more information, please see the complete reference list of the Federal Highway Administration’s 2010
report on The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes. It can be viewed here.
142
L o b a t o | 64
Policy Alternative Calculations :
Formula Used
Cost Description
Construction costs accounted for
weighted average cost of capital
CPI Index Adjustments
Medical Care
EMS
Insurance Costs
Legal Costs
Quality of Life
Congestion
Property Damage
Market Productivity
Household Productivity
Injuries after construction of rumple
strips
Fatalities after construction of rumble
strips
Medical Care
EMS
Insurance Costs
Legal Costs
Quality of Life
Congestion
Property Damage
Formula
Weighted and Adjusted Costs
Calculations
Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) = [Market value of firm's equity/(Equity + Debt) x Cost
(10/100*10%)+(90/100*5%*65%) = 3.925%
of Equity] + [Market value of firm's debt/(equity+debt) x Cost of debt (1 - Corporate tax rate)]
The CPI calculator from the U.S. Government was used to calculate all dollars into 2015 values
from 2010 dollar values
Status Quo
(Average medical cost per person with serious injuries x number of serious injuries) + (Average
medical cost per fatality x number of fatalities) = Total medical care cost for status quo
(Average EMS cost per person with serious injuries x numbers of serious injuries) + (Average EMS
cost per fatality x number of fatalities) = Total EMS cost for status quo
(Average insurance cost per person with serious injuries x number of injuries) + (Average insurance
cost per fatality x number of fatalities) = Total insurance cost for status quo
(Average legal cost per person with serious injuries x number of serious injuries) + (Average legal
cost per fatality x number of fatalities) = Total legal cost for status quo
(Average quality of life per person with serious injuries x number of serious injuries) + (Average
quality of life per fatality x number of fatalities) = Total quality of life cost for status quo
(Average congestion per person with serious injuries x number of serious injuries) + (Average
congestion per fatality x number of fatalities) = Total congestion cost for status quo / 3 to adjust for
average rural congestion costs
(Average property damage cost per person with serious injuries x number of serious injuries) +
(Average property damage cost per fatality x number of fatalities) = Total property damage care
cost for status quo
(Average market productivity cost per person with serious injuries x number of serious injuries) +
(Average market productivity per fatality x number of fatalities) = Total market productivity care
cost for status quo
(Average household productivity cost per person with serious injuries x number of serious injuries) +
(Average household productivity cost per fatality x number of fatalities) = Total household
productivity care cost for status quo
Rumble Strips
The cumulative rate of inflation for all numbers was 7.6%
($475,373 x 117 ) + ($12,182 x 2) = $8,105,705
($820 x 17 ) + ($971 x 2) = $17,588
($86,168 x 17) + ($30,486 x 2) = $1,519,922
(98,168 x 17) + ($114,627 x 2) = $11,898,104
($4,928,484 x 17) + ($8,339,229 x 2) = $100,462,683
($183 x 17) + ($2,052 x 2) = $7,216
($15,092 x 17) + ($12,068 x 2) = $280,700
($379,097 x 17) + ($8,339,229 x 2) = $8,453,835
($115,254 x 17) + ($312,069 x 2) = $2,583,454
Number of status quo serious injuries - crash reduction factor 0.37**
17 - (17 x 0.37) = 10.71
Number of status quo fatalities - crash reduction factor of 0.18**
2 - (2 x 0.37) = 0.74
(Average medical cost per person with serious injuries x status quo number of serious injuries
reduced by 37% ) + (Average medical cost per fatality x status quo number of fatalities reduced by
37%) = Total medical care cost for rumble strips
(Average EMS cost per person with serious injuries x status quo number of serious injuries reduced
by 37% ) + (Average EMS cost per fatality x status quo number of fatalities reduced by 37%) =
Total EMS care cost for rumble strips
(Average insurance cost per person with serious injuries x status quo number of serious injuries
reduced by 37% ) + (Average insurance cost per fatality x status quo number of fatalities reduced
by 37%) = Total medical care cost for rumble strips
(Average legal cost per person with serious injuries x status quo number of serious injuries reduced
by 37% ) + (Average legal cost per fatality x status quo number of fatalities reduced by 37%) =
Total legal care cost for rumble strips
(Average quality of life cost per person with serious injuries x status quo number of serious injuries
reduced by 37% ) + (Average quality of life cost per fatality x status quo number of fatalities
reduced by 37%) = Total quality of life care cost for rumble strips
(Average congestion cost per person with serious injuries x status quo number of serious injuries
reduced by 37% ) + (Average congestion cost per fatality x status quo number of fatalities reduced
by 37%) = Total congestion care cost for rumble strips
(Average property damage cost per person with serious injuries x status quo number of serious
injuries reduced by 37% ) + (Average property damage cost per fatality x status quo number of
fatalities reduced by 37%) = Total property damage care cost for rumble strips
17 - (17 x 0.37) = 10.71
2 - (2 x 0.37) = 0.74
($475,373 x 10.71 ) + ($12,182 x 0.74) = $5,106,594
($820 x 10.71 ) + ($971 x 0.74) = $11,080
($86,168 x 10.71) + ($30,486 x 0.74) = $957,595
(98,168 x 10.71) + ($114,627 x 0.74) = $1,195,806
($4,928,484 x 10.71) + ($8,339,229 x 0.74) = $63,291,491
Market Productivity
(Average market productivity cost per person with serious injuries x status quo number of serious
injuries reduced by 37% ) + (Average market productivity damage cost per fatality x status quo
($183 x 10.71) + ($2,052 x 0.74) = $4,546
number of fatalities reduced by 37%) = Total market productivity damage care cost for rumble strips
Household Productivity
(Average household productivity cost per person with serious injuries x status quo number of serious
injuries reduced by 37% ) + (Average household productivity damage cost per fatality x status quo
($15,092 x 10.71) + ($12,068 x 0.74) = $176,841
number of fatalities reduced by 37%) = Total household productivity damage care cost for rumble
strips
SH 60 (3.64 mile section/19,219.2 feet)
adjusted for WACC
(Rumble strip cost per foot x number of feet of highway section SH 60)/ (1 + WACC) n
($0.87 x 19,219') / (1+0.03925)10 = $11,378
SH 66 (12.4 mile section/65,472 feet)
adjusted for WACC
(Rumble strip cost per foot x number of feet of highway section SH 66) / (1 + WACC) n
($0.87 x 65,472') / (1+0.03925)10 = $38,759
Shoulder Increase
Injuries after construction of rumple
strips
Fatalities after construction of rumble
strips
Medical Care
EMS
Number of status quo serious injuries - crash reduction factor 0.37**
17 - (17 x 0.18) = 13.94
Number of status quo fatalities - crash reduction factor of 0.37**
2 - (2 x 0.18) = 1.64
(Average medical cost per person with serious injuries x status quo number of serious injuries
reduced by 37% ) + (Average medical cost per fatality x status quo number of fatalities reduced by ($475,373 x 13.94) + ($12,182 x 1.64) = $6,646,678
37%) = Total medical care cost for rumble strips
(Average EMS cost per person with serious injuries x status quo number of serious injuries reduced
by 37% ) + (Average EMS cost per fatality x status quo number of fatalities reduced by 37%) =
($820 x 13.94) + ($971 x 1.64) = $14,422
Total EMS care cost for rumble strips
Household Productivity
(Average household productivity cost per person with serious injuries x status quo number of serious
injuries reduced by 37% ) + (Average household productivity damage cost per fatality x status quo
($15,092 x 10.71) + ($12,068 x 0.74) = $176,841
number of fatalities reduced by 37%) = Total household productivity damage care cost for rumble
strips
SH 60 (3.64 mile section/19,219.2 feet)
adjusted for WACC
(Rumble strip cost per foot x number of feet of highway section SH 60)/ (1 + WACC) n
($0.87 x 19,219') / (1+0.03925)10 = $11,378
SH 66 (12.4 mile section/65,472 feet)
adjusted for WACC
(Rumble strip cost per foot x number of feet of highway section SH 66) / (1 + WACC) n
($0.87 x 65,472') / (1+0.03925)10 = $38,759
L o b a t o | 65
Shoulder Increase
Injuries after construction of rumple
strips
Fatalities after construction of rumble
strips
Number of status quo serious injuries - crash reduction factor 0.37**
17 - (17 x 0.18) = 13.94
Number of status quo fatalities - crash reduction factor of 0.37**
2 - (2 x 0.18) = 1.64
(Average medical cost per person with serious injuries x status quo number of serious injuries
reduced by 37% ) + (Average medical cost per fatality x status quo number of fatalities reduced by
37%) = Total medical care cost for rumble strips
(Average EMS cost per person with serious injuries x status quo number of serious injuries reduced
by 37% ) + (Average EMS cost per fatality x status quo number of fatalities reduced by 37%) =
Total EMS care cost for rumble strips
(Average insurance cost per person with serious injuries x status quo number of serious injuries
reduced by 37% ) + (Average insurance cost per fatality x status quo number of fatalities reduced
by 37%) = Total medical care cost for rumble strips
(Average legal cost per person with serious injuries x status quo number of serious injuries reduced
by 37% ) + (Average legal cost per fatality x status quo number of fatalities reduced by 37%) =
Total legal care cost for rumble strips
(Average quality of life cost per person with serious injuries x status quo number of serious injuries
reduced by 37% ) + (Average quality of life cost per fatality x status quo number of fatalities
reduced by 37%) = Total quality of life care cost for rumble strips
(Average congestion cost per person with serious injuries x status quo number of serious injuries
reduced by 37% ) + (Average congestion cost per fatality x status quo number of fatalities reduced
by 37%) = Total congestion care cost for rumble strips
(Average property damage cost per person with serious injuries x status quo number of serious
injuries reduced by 37% ) + (Average property damage cost per fatality x status quo number of
fatalities reduced by 37%) = Total property damage care cost for rumble strips
Medical Care
EMS
Insurance Costs
Legal Costs
Quality of Life
Congestion
Property Damage
($475,373 x 13.94) + ($12,182 x 1.64) = $6,646,678
($820 x 13.94) + ($971 x 1.64) = $14,422
($86,168 x 13.94) + ($30,486 x 1.64) = $1,246,393
(98,168 x 13.94) + ($114,627 x 1.64) = $1,556,446
($4,928,484 x 13.84) + ($8,339,229 x 1.64) = $82,379,400
($183 x 13.94) + ($2,052 x 1.64) = $5,917
($15,092 x 13.94) + ($12,068 x 1.64) = $230,174
Market Productivity
(Average market productivity cost per person with serious injuries x status quo number of serious
injuries reduced by 37% ) + (Average market productivity damage cost per fatality x status quo
($379,097 x 13.94) + ($1,004,596 x 1.64) = $6,932,145
number of fatalities reduced by 37%) = Total market productivity damage care cost for rumble strips
Household Productivity
(Average household productivity cost per person with serious injuries x status quo number of serious
injuries reduced by 37% ) + (Average household productivity damage cost per fatality x status quo
($115,254 x 13.94) + ($312,069 x 1.64) = $2,118,433
number of fatalities reduced by 37%) = Total household productivity damage care cost for rumble
strips
SH 60 (3.64 mile section/19,219.2 feet)
adjusted for WACC
(Shoulder widening cost per foot x number of feet of highway section SH 60) / (1 + WACC) n
($14.09 x 19,219.2') / (1+0.03925)10 = $184,266
SH 66 (12.4 mile section/65,472 feet)
adjusted for WACC
(Shoulder widening cost per foot x number of feet of highway section SH 66) / (1 + WACC) n
($14.9 x 65,472') / (1+0.03925)10 = $627,720
Major Rehabilitation SH60* adjusted for
n
(Cost for CDOT planned major surface treatment rehabilitation on SH 60)/ (1 + WACC)
WACC
(5000000)/(1+0.03925)10 = $3,402,277
Minor Rehabilitation SH60* adjusted for
n
(Cost for CDOT planned minor surface treatment rehabilitation on SH 60)/ (1 + WACC)
WACC
(1600000)/(1+0.03925)10 = $1,088,729
* CDOT does not provide breakdown of bid numbers as the bidder has not been approved
** Crash reduction factor is the same as a percentage decrease
The policy calculations were separated out based upon alternative. This is to match the costbenefit matrix in order to enhance readability. These calculations show the economic and social unit costs
for each fatality and each death. It then shows how those unit costs were multiplied to match the actual
fatal crash rates of SH 60 and SH 66.
L o b a t o | 66
Sensitivity Analysis:
Costs
Stakeholder & Standing
Rumble Strips Totals at
27% Reduction
Rumble Strips Totals at
37% Reduction
Rumble Strips Totals at
47% Reduction
Economic Impact
Crash Victim
Medical Care
EMS
Insurance Costs
Legal Costs
Quality of Life
$6,078,791
$5,106,594
$13,152
$11,080
$4,296,024
$9,322
$1,142,021
$960,322
$807,890
$1,418,993
$1,195,806
$1,005,995
$75,013,443
$63,291,491
$53,245,222
External Economic Costs-Society
Congestion
$5,330
$4,546
$3,824
$210,044
$176,842
$148,772
Market Productivity
$6,300,192
$5,325,916
$4,480,532
Household Productivity
$1,925,108
$1,627,576
$1,369,231
Property Damage
Productivity Costs
Government Roadway Costs
Highway Maintenance
Major Rehabilitation SH60
$3,402,277
$3,402,277
$3,402,277
Minor Rehabilitation SH60
$1,088,729
$1,088,729
$1,088,729
SH 60 (3.64 mile section/19,219.2 feet)
$11,378
$11,378
$11,378
SH 66 (12.4 mile section/65,472 feet)
$38,759
$38,759
$38,759
$82,241,316
$69,907,955
Highway Construction Costs
Total Costs
$96,648,218
Benefits
Stakeholder & Standing
Rumble Strips Totals at
27% Reduction
Rumble Strips Totals at
37% Reduction
Rumble Strips Totals at
47% Reduction
Economic Impact
Crash Victim
Medical Care Savings
$2,188,540
$2,999,111
$4,749
$6,507
$8,266
Insurance Costs
$411,567
$563,999
$716,431
Legal Costs
$512,488
$702,299
$892,109
$27,124,925
$37,171,193
$47,217,461
EMS
Quality of Life
$3,809,681
External Economic Benefits-Society
Congestion
Property Damage
$1,948
$2,670
$3,391
$75,790
$103,860
$131,930
$2,282,535
$3,127,919
$3,973,302
$697,533
$955,878
$1,214,224
$1,393,268
$1,909,292
$2,425,318
$628,142
$101,269
Productivity Benefits
Market Productivity
Household Productivity
Value of Risk Reduction Death
Value of Risk Reduction Severe Injury
Total Benefits
$1,093,432
$35,321,484
$47,643,996
$52,779,270
Net Present Costs
-$96,648,218
-$82,241,316
-$69,907,955
Net Present Benefit
$35,321,484
$47,643,996
$52,779,270
Net Present Value
-$61,326,734
-$34,597,320
-$17,128,685
L o b a t o | 67
This is the detailed sensitivity analysis that appears in the memo text. This sensitivity analysis is
calculated for the strategic recommendation of implementing rumble strips. The percentages were chosen
in 10% increments to account for the possible differences in success rates. Because accident trends are
calculated over a 5 year period of time, it is likely that crash rates will vary even after the recommended
alternative is implemented.
L o b a t o | 68
References
2013 County Road Milage Report - County Road Statistics. Colorado Department of Transportation,
2013.
http://dtdapps.coloradodot.info/StaticData/Statistics/dsp_folder/Roadway/HUTF2013/CountyMil
eage2013_HUTF.pdf.
2013 State of Colorado Distracted Driving Study. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University:
Institute of Transportation Management, 2013. https://www.codot.gov/library/surveys/2013cdotdistracteddriver.pdf.
“2014 Annual Report — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT.” File. Accessed March 8,
2015. https://www.codot.gov/library/AnnualReports/2014-annual-report/view.
“2014 by County — CDOT.” File. Accessed October 30, 2014.
http://www.coloradodot.info/library/traffic/traffic-manuals-guidelines/safety-crash-data/fatalcrash-data-city-county/fatal-crashes-by-city-and-county/county-fatals-2014/view.
“2014 Full Colorado Problem Identification (ID) Report — CDOT.” File. Accessed November 5,
2014. http://www.coloradodot.info/programs/safety-data-sources-information/full-coloradoproblem-id-2014/view.
“2014 Monthly Fatals — CDOT.” File. Accessed October 30, 2014.
http://www.coloradodot.info/library/traffic/traffic-manuals-guidelines/safety-crash-data/fatalcrash-data-city-county/monthly-fatals-2014/view.
2014 Transportation Deficit Report. Colorado Department of Transportation, 2014.
https://www.codot.gov/library/AnnualReports/2014-annual-transportation-deficit-report.pdf.
Albalate, Daniel, Laura Fernández, and Anastasiya Yarygina. “The Road against Fatalities:
Infrastructure Spending vs. Regulation??” Accident Analysis & Prevention 59 (October 2013):
227–39. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2013.06.008.
L o b a t o | 69
“Approved Projects Lists — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT.” Folder. Accessed
March 30, 2015. https://www.codot.gov/projects/approved-projects-lists.
“ASCE | 2013 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure | Grade Sheet: Economic Implications.”
Accessed March 8, 2015. http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/a/#p/grade-sheet/economicimplications.
Bamzai, Radhika, Yongdoo Lee, and Zongzhi Li. “Safety Impacts of Highway Shoulder Attributes in
Illinois,” April 2011. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/45840.
Blincoe, L, J., T.R. Miller, E Zaloshnja, and B.A. Lawrence. The Economic and Societal Impact of
Motor Vehicle Crashes. Washington, D.C: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
May 2014.
Cafiso, Salvatore, Alessandro Di Graziano, Giacomo Di Silvestro, Grazia La Cava, and Bhagwant
Persaud. “Development of Comprehensive Accident Models for Two-Lane Rural Highways
Using Exposure, Geometry, Consistency and Context Variables.” Accident Analysis &
Prevention 42, no. 4 (July 2010): 1072–79. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2009.12.015.
“CDOT Roadway Design Guide 2005 — CDOT.” Folder. Accessed January 12, 2015.
https://www.codot.gov/business/designsupport/bulletins_manuals/roadway-design-guide.
Cohen, Alma, and Rajeev Dehejia. The Effect of Automobile Insurance and Accident Liability Laws
in Traffic Fatalities. Working Paper. National Bureau of Economic Research, April 2003.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w9602.
“Colorado’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan.” January 22, 2014.
http://www.drivesmartweldcounty.com/assets/b6D8C90207Cda3a39adC.pdf.
Crash Rate Book 2012: Crashes and Rates on State Highways. CDOT Safety and Traffic Engineering
Branch: Accident Data Management Unit, 2012.
L o b a t o | 70
“Crash Reduction Factor.” US Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration,
October 15, 2014. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tools/crf/.
DeAngelo, Gregory, and Benjamin Hansen. “Life and Death in the Fast Lane: Police Enforcement
and Traffic Fatalities †.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 6, no. 2 (May 2014):
231–57. doi:10.1257/pol.6.2.231.
“Economic Values Used in Analyses.” Text. Department of Transportation, March 1, 2012.
http://www.dot.gov/regulations/economic-values-used-in-analysis.
Egilmez, Gokhan, and Deborah McAvoy. “Benchmarking Road Safety of U.S. States: A DEA-Based
Malmquist Productivity Index Approach.” Accident Analysis & Prevention 53 (April 1, 2013):
55–64. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2012.12.038.
“Fact Book — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT.” Collection. Accessed March 10,
2015. https://www.codot.gov/topcontent/FactBook.
FARS Crash Statistics for Colorado: Query. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)
Encyclopedia: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, February 21, 2015. http://wwwfars.nhtsa.dot.gov/QueryTool/Common/PinMapView.aspx.
“Fatal Crash Data — CDOT.” Folder. Accessed November 5, 2014.
http://www.coloradodot.info/library/traffic/traffic-manuals-guidelines/safety-crash-data/fatalcrash-data-city-county.
“Fatal Crashes by County- 2013.” Colorado Department of Transportation, June 2, 2014.
file:///C:/Users/Taylor.Lobato/Downloads/County_Fatals_2013.pdf.
“Fatal Crash Totals.” Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Highway Loss Data Institute, 2012.
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/state-by-state-overview.
L o b a t o | 71
Gabler, Hampton C., Douglas J. Gabauer, and Virginia Tech. “Opportunities for Reduction of
Fatalities in Vehicle-Guardrail Collisions.” Annual Proceedings / Association for the
Advancement of Automotive Medicine 51 (2007): 31–48.
Goodwin, A, B Kirley, L Sandt, W Hall, L Thomas, N O’Brien, and D Summerlin. Countermeasures
That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide For State Highway Safety Offices. 7th
Edition. Washington, D.C: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, April 2013.
file:///C:/Users/Taylor.Lobato/Downloads/811727%20(1).pdf.
Guidance for the Design and Application of Shoulder and Centerline Rumble Strips. Washington,
D.C: National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 2009.
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_641.pdf.
“Highway Trust Fund Running on Empty; Colorado Roads and Jobs at Risk.” Accessed November 5,
2014. http://www.denverpost.com/ci_26185637/highway-trust-fund-running-empty-coloradoroads-and.
Hojman, Pablo, Juan de Dios Ortuzar, and Luis Ignacio Rizzi. “On the Joint Valuation of Averting
Fatal and Severe Injuries in Highway Accidents.” Journal of Safety Research 36, no. 4 (2005):
377–86. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2005.07.003.
Hunt, Don. “Driving the Future: Transportation Policy in the 21st Century.” Great Issues Forum,
University of Denver, October 10, 2014.
Jones-Lee, M., G. Loomes, D. O’Reilly, and P. Philips. “THE VALUE OF PREVENTING NONFATAL ROAD INJURIES: FINDINGS OF A WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY NATIONAL
SAMPLE SURVEY.” TRL Contractor Report, no. CR 330 (1993).
http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=377578.
Khorashadi, Ahmad, Debbie Niemeier, Venky Shankar, and Fred Mannering. “Differences in Rural
and Urban Driver-Injury Severities in Accidents Involving Large-Trucks: An Exploratory
L o b a t o | 72
Analysis.” Accident Analysis & Prevention 37, no. 5 (September 2005): 910–21.
doi:10.1016/j.aap.2005.04.009.
Lord, Dominique, and Fred Mannering. “The Statistical Analysis of Crash-Frequency Data: A Review
and Assessment of Methodological Alternatives.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice 44, no. 5 (June 2010): 291–305. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2010.02.001.
Lundquist, Janet. Weld County Accident Hot Spots and Actions Taken. Telephone, March 18, 2015.
Miller, T., J. Viner, S. Rossman, N. Pindus, W. Gellert, J. Douglass, A. Dillingham, and G.
Blomquist. “THE COSTS OF HIGHWAY CRASHES. FINAL REPORT,” June 1991.
http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=355938.
Mitra, Sudeshna, and Simon Washington. “On the Significance of Omitted Variables in Intersection
Crash Modeling.” Accident Analysis & Prevention, 49 (November 2012): 439–48.
doi:10.1016/j.aap.2012.03.014.
MMUCC Guideline: Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria. Fourth Edition. Model Minimum
Uniform Crash Criteria, 2012. http://mmucc.us/sites/default/files/MMUCC_4th_Ed.pdf.
Nguyen-Hoang, Phuong, and Ryan Yeung. “Dollars for Lives: The Effect of Highway Capital
Investments on Traffic Fatalities.” Journal of Safety Research 51 (December 2014): 109–15.
doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2014.09.008.
Ogden, K. W. “The Effects of Paved Shoulders on Accidents on Rural Highways.” Accident Analysis
& Prevention 29, no. 3 (May 1997): 353–62. doi:10.1016/S0001-4575(97)00001-8.
Outcalt, William. Center Line Rumble Strips. Colorado Department of Transportation Research,
August 2001. file:///C:/Users/Taylor.Lobato/Downloads/centerline.pdf.
Paved Shoulders on Primary Highways in Iowa: An Analysis of Shoulder Surfacing Criteria, Costs,
and Benefits. Office of Traffic and Safety of the Iowa Department of Transportation, November
2001. http://www.intrans.iastate.edu/reports/pavedshoulder.pdf.
L o b a t o | 73
Persaud, Bhagwant N., Richard A. Retting, and Craig A. Lyon. “Crash Reduction Following
Installation of Centerline Rumble Strips on Rural Two-Lane Roads.” Accident Analysis &
Prevention 36, no. 6 (November 2004): 1073–79. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2004.03.002.
Prediction of the Expecte Safety Performance of Rural Two-Lane Highways. McLean, VA: Federal
Highway Administration, December 2000.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/99207/99207.pdf.
Rizzi, Luis I., and Juan de Dios Ortúzar. “Estimating the Willingness‐to‐Pay for Road Safety
Improvements.” Transport Reviews 26, no. 4 (July 1, 2006): 471–85.
doi:10.1080/01441640600602302.
Savage, Ian. “Reflections on the Economics of Transportation Safety.” Research in Transportation
Economics, The Economics of Transportation Safety, 43, no. 1 (July 2013): 1–8.
doi:10.1016/j.retrec.2012.12.012.
Savolainen, Peter T., Fred L. Mannering, Dominique Lord, and Mohammed A. Quddus. “The
Statistical Analysis of Highway Crash-Injury Severities: A Review and Assessment of
Methodological Alternatives.” Accident Analysis & Prevention 43, no. 5 (September 2011):
1666–76. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2011.03.025.
“SH 60 in Weld County — Colorado Department of Transportation - CDOT.” Page. Accessed March
27, 2015. https://www.codot.gov/projects/floodrelatedprojects/sh-60-in-weld-county.
“Stateline – State Traffic Fatalities Depend on Country Roads, Seat Belt Use, Drunk Driving and
Speeding.” Accessed March 28, 2015. http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-andanalysis/blogs/stateline/2013/03/12/rural-states-struggle-to-reduce-road-deaths.
“Strategic Highway Safety.” CDOT Statewide Plan. Accessed March 16, 2015.
http://coloradotransportationmatters.com/other-cdot-plans/strategic-highway-safety/.
L o b a t o | 74
Toward Zero Deaths: A National Strategy on Highway Safety. Federal Highway Administration, June
2014. http://www.towardzerodeaths.org/dld/TZD_Strategy_12_1_2014.pdf.
Traynor, Thomas L. “Regional Economic Conditions and Crash Fatality Rates – a Cross-County
Analysis.” Journal of Safety Research 39, no. 1 (2008): 33–39. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2007.10.008.
Tribune, The Greeley. “Weld Public Safety Officials Address Spike in 2014 Fatal Vehicle Crashes,
Step up Traffic Enforcemen | GreeleyTribune.com.” The Greeley Tribune. Accessed March 30,
2015. http://www.greeleytribune.com/news/14743566-113/weld-public-safety-officials-addressspike-in-2014-fatal-vehicle.
“USDA Economic Research Service - State Data.” Accessed March 23, 2015.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/state-fact-sheets/statedata.aspx?StateFIPS=08&StateName=Colorado#.VRBmRo54pV0.
Vaughan, Kevin. “Rural Emergency Medicine.” Rocky Mountain PBS I-News. Accessed November
5, 2014. http://inewsnetwork.org/2013/08/29/rural-emergency-medicine/.
Warden, Donald. Weld County 2013 Final Budget. Weld County Colorado: County of Weld,
December 2013. http://www.co.weld.co.us/assets/6Dc3AcDcBdCcACa5bC9D.pdf.
Zegeer, Charles, Robert Deen, and Jesse Mayes. “The Effect of Lane and Shoulder Widths on
Accident Reductions on Rural, Two-Lane Roads.” Kentucky Transportation Center Research
Reports, October 1, 1980. http://uknowledge.uky.edu/ktc_researchreports/811.
Zegeer, Charles V., Robert C. Deen, and Jesse G. Mayes. “EFFECT OF LANE AND SHOULDER
WIDTHS ON ACCIDENT REDUCTION ON RURAL, TWO-LANE ROADS.” Transportation
Research Record, no. 806 (1981). http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=173310.
Zegeer, C. V., R. Stewart, F. Council, and T. R. Neuman. “ROADWAY WIDTHS FOR LOWTRAFFIC-VOLUME ROADS.” NCHRP Report, no. 362 (1994).
http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=408237.
L o b a t o | 75
Zwerling, C., C. Peek-Asa, P. S. Whitten, S.-W. Choi, N. L. Sprince, and M. P. Jones. “Fatal Motor
Vehicle Crashes in Rural and Urban Areas: Decomposing Rates into Contributing Factors.”
Injury Prevention 11, no. 1 (February 1, 2005): 24–28. doi:10.1136/ip.2004.005959.