Study Details
Study Title: Multi-State Safety Evaluation of Intersection Conflict Warning Systems (ICWS)
Authors: Himes et al
Publication Date:JAN, 2016
Abstract: Intersection Conflict Warning Systems (ICWS) were selected for evaluation under the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Evaluation of Low-Cost Safety Improvements Pooled Fund Study. This strategy is intended to reduce the frequency of crashes by alerting drivers of conflicting vehicles on adjacent approaches at unsignalized intersections. The evaluation was based on a multistate database of geometric, traffic, and crash data obtained for four-legged rural two-way stop-controlled intersections equipped with ICWS in Minnesota, Missouri, and North Carolina. To account for potential selection bias and regression-to-the-mean, an empirical Bayes (EB) before-after analysis was conducted, using safety performance functions (SPFs) for reference groups of similar four-legged rural two-way stop-controlled intersections without ICWS installation. These SPFs also control for changes in traffic volumes over time and time trends in crash counts unrelated to the strategy. The aggregate results indicate statistically significant crash reductions at the five percent level for all crash types for two-lane at two-lane intersections and four-lane at two-lane intersections. For two-lane at two-lane intersections, the CMFs for total crashes, fatal and injury crashes, and right-angle crashes are 0.73, 0.70, and 0.80, respectively. For four-lane at two-lane intersections, the CMFs for total crashes, fatal and injury crashes, and right-angle crashes are 0.83, 0.80, and 0.85, respectively. The benefit-cost ratio estimated with conservative cost and service life assumptions is 27:1 for all two-lane at two-lane intersections and 10:1 for four-lane at two-lane intersections with post-mounted warning signs. The results suggest that the strategy, even with conservative assumptions on cost, service life, and the value of a statistical life, can be highly cost effective. As this is an evolving strategy, this study reflects installation practices to date.
Study Citation: Himes, S., F. Gross, K. Eccles, and B. Persaud. "Multi-State Safety Evaluation of Intersection Conflict Warning Systems (ICWS)". Presented at the 95th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Paper No. 16-4225, Washington, D.C., (2016).
Related Citations: Safety Evaluation of Intersection Conflict Warning Systems (ICWS), Federal Highway Administration, Techbrief, FHWA-HRT-15-076, February, 2016.
Study Report: Download the Study Report Document
CMFs Associated With This Study
Category: Signs
Countermeasure: Install an intersection conflict warning system (ICWS) with a combination of overhead and advanced post mounted signs (various messages) and flashers
CMF | CRF(%) | Quality | Crash Type | Crash Severity | Roadway Type | Area Type |
---|
0.704 | 29.6 | | All | All | Not specified | Rural |
Countermeasure: Install an intersection conflict warning system (ICWS) with overhead signs (various messages) and flashers at the intersection on major; loop on minor
CMF | CRF(%) | Quality | Crash Type | Crash Severity | Roadway Type | Area Type |
---|
0.74 | 26 | | All | All | Not specified | Rural |
0.6 | 40 | | All | K,A,B,C | Not specified | Rural |
Countermeasure: Install an intersection conflict warning system (ICWS) with overhead signs (various messages) and flashers at the intersection on minor; loop on major
CMF | CRF(%) | Quality | Crash Type | Crash Severity | Roadway Type | Area Type |
---|
1.084 | -8.4 | | Angle | All | Not specified | Rural |
Countermeasure: Install an intersection conflict warning system (ICWS) with post mounted signs (various messages) and flashers at the intersection on minor; loop on major
CMF | CRF(%) | Quality | Crash Type | Crash Severity | Roadway Type | Area Type |
---|
0.886 | 11.4 | | All | All | Not specified | Rural |
0.69 | 31 | | All | All | Not specified | Rural |
Countermeasure: Install an intersection conflict warning system (ICWS) with post mounted signs (various messages) and flashers in advance of the intersection on major; loop on minor
CMF | CRF(%) | Quality | Crash Type | Crash Severity | Roadway Type | Area Type |
---|
0.769 | 23.1 | | Angle | All | Not specified | Rural |
0.45 | 55 | | All | K,A,B,C | Not specified | Rural |
Countermeasure: Install intersection conflict warning systems (ICWS) for four-lane at two-lane intersections
CMF | CRF(%) | Quality | Crash Type | Crash Severity | Roadway Type | Area Type |
---|
0.85 | 15 | | Angle | All | Not specified | Rural |
0.74 | 26 | | All | All | Not specified | Rural |
1.05 | -5 | | All | A,B,C | Not specified | Rural |
0.64 | 36 | | Angle | All | Not specified | Rural |
0.72 | 28 | | All | All | Not specified | Rural |
0.55 | 45 | | All | A,B,C | Not specified | Rural |
0.8 | 20 | | Angle | All | Not specified | Rural |
0.89 | 11 | | All | All | Not specified | Rural |
0.95 | 5 | | All | A,B,C | Not specified | Rural |
0.88 | 12 | | Angle | All | Not specified | Rural |
0.83 | 17 | | All | All | Not specified | Rural |
0.8 | 20 | | All | A,B,C | Not specified | Rural |
Countermeasure: Install intersection conflict warning systems (ICWS) for two-lane at two-lane intersections
CMF | CRF(%) | Quality | Crash Type | Crash Severity | Roadway Type | Area Type |
---|
0.53 | 47 | | All | A,B,C | Not specified | Rural |
0.8 | 20 | | Angle | All | Not specified | Rural |
0.7 | 30 | | All | A,B,C | Not specified | Rural |
0.73 | 27 | | All | All | Not specified | Rural |
0.79 | 21 | | Angle | All | Not specified | Rural |
0.69 | 31 | | All | A,B,C | Not specified | Rural |
0.73 | 27 | | All | All | Not specified | Rural |
0.77 | 23 | | Angle | All | Not specified | Rural |
1.09 | -9 | | All | A,B,C | Not specified | Rural |
0.78 | 22 | | All | All | Not specified | Rural |
0.86 | 14 | | All | All | Not specified | Rural |