PLACEMENT OF DEER CROSSING SIGN IN WISCONSIN



DEER-VEHICLE CRASH PATTERNS AND

DEER CROSSING SIGN PLACEMENT

by

Xin Yi

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of

the requirement for the degree of

Master of Science

(Civil and Environmental Engineering)

at the

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON

May 2003

(Updated August 2003)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my advisor, Dr. Keith K. Knapp for his advice, encouragement, patience and support throughout my entire study and research activity at University of Wisconsin-Madison. I would also like to thank Robert E. Rolley from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, and Matt Rauch, Richard Lange, Andrew Schilling, Timothy McClain, and Mary Kunkel from Wisconsin Department of Transportation for their valuable assistance with my data collection. I would also like to thank Drs. Bin Ran and David Noyce for their valuable suggestions and considerate comments. Most importantly, I would like to express my appreciation to my father, my mother, and my friends who have encouraged and supported my study and made my work possible.

ABSTRACT

About 20,000 Deer-Vehicle Crashes (DVCs) are reported along the roadways of Wisconsin each year. Deer crossing (DC) signs are widely used as countermeasures for DVCs throughout the United States and Wisconsin. The typical assumption is that these signs designate a roadway segment that has a large number of DVCs and deer crossings. Previous studies of DC signs have focused on the impacts of enhancements to them, and typically assumed that the signs were installed at a proper location. No studies were found that evaluated the effectiveness of an ordinary DC sign. The MUTCD provides some quantitative guidance for DC sign installation and a few jurisdictions have DVC related criteria for installation, but no studies were found that supported the basis of these criteria. The purpose of this research is to help better define the DVC problem in Wisconsin, and investigate the DVC patterns within the selected study segments with DC signs. Procedure guideline for the installation of DVC signs is also recommended.

Twelve deer carcass removal (DCR) and DVC frequencies and rates, along with DCR to DVC ratio, were calculated for each county in Wisconsin. The magnitude of the DVC problems in Wisconsin was discussed by county. First, the DCR to DVC ratios were analyzed by county. Fifty-eight out of 71 counties that have available data had the DCR to DVC ratio between 0.93 and 4.90, while the others ranged from 6.53 to 49.33. Then the 12 DCR and DVC measures were ranked for the 58 counties. The top ten counties within the 12 lists were discussed. Sixteen counties were considered to have more than typical DVC issues were presented, and five counties were selected from the sixteen counties for this research, which included Adams, Dane, Sauk, Waupaca and Shawano County.

Seventy-six DC sign installation locations in the five counties were selected for this study. The 1996 to 1998 DVC data within two miles of the DC sign pairs were then collected and analyzed. The DC sign pairs were first grouped into 30 crash analysis sites (CASs), which included 38 sign pairs. Twenty-two of the CASs had single DC sign pairs and eight included two DC sign pairs for each CAS. The average overall length of the 30 CASs was 7.9 miles with an average roadway segment length between the DC signs of 3.5 miles, and an average length outside the DC signs of 4.4 miles.

Twenty-eight of the 30 CASs had higher DVC rates (DVCs per HMVMT) between the DC signs than the state average. Twenty-five CASs had higher than state average DVC rates outside the DC signs. The average DVC rate between the DC signs was more than five times the state average. And the average DVC rate outside the DC signs was about four times the state average. Similar traits were found when the CAS averages were compared to the county rate averages. Twenty-two of the 30 sites had an average DVC rate between the DC signs that was higher than the county average, and 18 had an average DVC rate outside the DC signs higher than the county average. However, DVC frequency (DVCs per mile per year) average between the DC signs was 14 times the state average, and the outside frequency average was 10 times the state average. The average DVC frequencies between and outside the DC signs in all the CASs were also higher than the county averages. These results indicate that this research considered sign locations with higher than average DVC frequencies and rates in the state and county.

The significance of the differences of the DVC frequency and rate between the CAS DC signs and these measures outside these signs was evaluated with a paired T-test. The T-test results indicated that the DVC frequencies and rates between the DC signs of the CASs were significantly greater than those outside the DC signs. A comparison of these differences for the single and multiple DC pair CASs showed that the average DVC frequency and rate differences for the multiple pair CASs, were 120 and 75 percent higher, respectively, than the average DVC comparable differences in the single DC sign pair CASs. In other words, a greater reduction in DVCs from between the DC signs to outside the DC signs occurred on multiple DC sign pair roadway segments than on segments within a single DC sign pair. Due to the small sample size, a non-parametric statistic analysis was also conducted on its significance, however no significant differences were found. Additional research is needed to determine if multiple signs truly impact the DVC patterns between and near the signs.

The 38 sign pairs identified in this study were also categorized into positive, negative, and conflicting sign locations based on their DVC patterns. Four DVC measures, the peak 1/4-mile DVC frequency and rate, and the peak average DVC frequency and rate, were investigated for each segment of each site. Fourteen DC sign pairs that had all four measures between the DC signs were selected as positive sign locations (PSLs). Based on these results, it was considered high probability that these locations were in the proper location. They were the focus of the further safety measure investigation. For example, all the PSLs had both between to outside DVC frequency and rate ratios higher than 1.16, with average of 2.15 and 2.52, respectively. The average DVC frequency between the DC signs of the PSLs was 3.62 DVCs per mile per year, and the average DVC rate for the same segments was 244.5 DVCs per HMVMT. These results were used in the creation of the DC sign installation guidance procedure recommended in this research.

Recommendations were made on the future research and data collection, such as between to outside sign DVC measure ratios for the entire state. Most importantly, the procedure guidelines for DC sign installations were recommended when a DC sign installation request was received in Wisconsin. The procedure limitations were also presented.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT i

ABSTRACT ii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

PROBLEM STATEMENT 2

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 3

ORGANIZATION 4

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 5

INTRODUCTION 5

DVC TEMPORAL PATTERNS 5

DVC SPATIAL PATTERNS 8

DC SIGN INSTALLATIONS 10

DC SIGN EFFECTIVENESS 11

MEASURE OF SAFETY 16

SUMMARY 18

CHAPTER 3 STUDY COUNTY AND SITE SELECTION 20

INTRODUCTION 20

SELECTION OF STUDY COUNTIES 20

DCR to DVC Ratios 22

County DCR and DVC Frequency and/or Rate Comparison 23

County Selection 27

SIGN INSTALLATION STUDY SITE SELECTION 28

SUMMARY 30

CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS 36

INTRODUCTION 36

CAS DEFINITION 36

CAS ANALYSIS 41

CAS Crash Statistics 42

CAS Safety Evaluation 46

INDIVIDUAL SIGN PAIR ANALYSIS 51

Overall Group Pattern Summary 51

SUMMARY 57

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 61

CONCLUSIONS 61

RECOMMENDATIONS 66

APPENDIX A COUNTY DCR AND DVC MEASURE RANKINGS 75

APPENDIX B CRASH ANALYSIS SITE LOCATIONS AND DVC PATTERNS 85

REFERENCES 117

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 County Descriptive Statistics 21

TABLE 2 Frequencies, Rates and DCR/DVC Ratio Descriptive Statistics 24

TABLE 3 Counties with Highest DCR Frequency and Rates 25

TABLE 4 Counties with Highest DVC Frequency and Rates 25

TABLE 5 Sign Pair Distances by County 30

TABLE 6 CAS Locations and Characteristics 38

TABLE 7 CAS Locations and Characteristics (Cont.) 39

TABLE 8 CAS Locations and Characteristics (Cont.) 40

TABLE 9 CAS DVC Frequencies and Rates 43

TABLE 10 CAS DVC Frequency and Rates Descriptive Statistics. 46

TABLE 11 State and County Average DVC Measures (1996 to 1998) 47

TABLE 12 CAS Between and Outside Paired T-Test DVC Comparison Results 49

TABLE 13 DVC Frequencies, Rates and Between to Outside Sign Ratios for PSLs. 56

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 Deer Crossing Sign 2

FIGURE 2 Supplemental Sign 2

FIGURE 3 DVC Temporal Patterns by Month in Wisconsin. 7

FIGURE 4 Lighted “DEER XING” Sign 12

FIGURE 5 Animated DC Sign with “DEER XING” Supplemental Sign 12

FIGURE 6 The Lighted, Animated Deer Crossing Sign 14

FIGURE 7 County DCR to DVC Ratios 23

FIGURE 8 Adams County Deer Crossing Sign Locations 31

FIGURE 9 Dane County Deer Crossing Sign Locations 31

FIGURE 10 Sauk County Deer Crossing Sign Locations 32

FIGURE 11 Shawano County Deer Crossing Sign Locations 33

FIGURE 12 Waupaca County Deer Crossing Sign Locations 34

FIGURE 13 Example Single (Upper) and Multiple DC Sign (Lower) Pair CASs 37

FIGURE 14 Example DVC Sign Pair Pattern (Peak Between DC Sign Pair) 52

FIGURE 15 Example DVC Sign Pair Pattern (Conflicting Peak Locations).. 53

FIGURE 16 Example DVC Sign Pair Pattern (Peak Outside DC Sign Pair) 54

FIGURE 17 Deer Crossing Sign Installation Procedure Guidance 74

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Deer-vehicle crashes (DVCs) drew the attention of engineers and researchers more than 30 years ago (1). More recently, however, this issue has become an increasing concern along the roadways in Wisconsin and the United States. In 2000, for example, there were 258,000 reported animal-vehicle crashes in the United States (2). These crashes included 143 fatalities (2). However, Conover has estimated that up to 50 percent of this type of crashes are unreported (3). In Wisconsin alone, there were more than 20,000 DVCs reported in 2000, and this represented 15 percent of the total crashes reported (4). However, deer carcass removal (DCR) numbers reported by Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) are approximately twice the number of DVCs reported by the Department of Transportation (DOT) (5). The vehicular damage cost estimates for the reported DVCs in Wisconsin State are more than $30 million per year (4).

Numerous methods have been developed to reduce DVCs (1, 6, 7). Some of the countermeasures considered have included fencing, bridge structures, roadside reflectors, vehicle whistles, highway lighting, right-of-way plantings and intercept feeding, salt alternatives, deer crossing (DC) signs, mirrors, chemical repellants, herd management, and speed limit reduction(6). DC signs (See Figure 1) with and without supplemental signs (See Figure 2) have been installed at a large number of locations. The primary objective of the installation is to reduce DVCs by warning drivers that they may be in an area with prevalent

FIGURE 1 Deer Crossing Sign (8)

FIGURE 2 Supplemental Sign (8)

deer crossings and/or crashes. The existence of these signs suggests caution and reduced vehicle speeds.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

DC signs are used throughout the United States. However, little research has focused on the placement of DC signs. Quantitative guidance on the installation of these signs is almost non-existent. The overuse or misuse of DC signs, however, can be costly and also reduce their potential effectiveness. Most DC signs are typically placed at locations where the need for caution is clear and obvious (e.g., curve warning signs), but this type of situation is not true for DC sign locations. The proper locations of these signs (and their supplementary distance message), therefore, become very important. At a minimum, the driver of a vehicle expects DC signs to designate roadway segments that have more than a typical number of deer crossings or DVCs. The actual magnitude of the DVC problem in Wisconsin is discussed. This research evaluates the DVC patterns surrounding a number of existing DC sign installations in 5 counties to determine if this selection is appropriate for these locations. In addition, no quantitative guidance on the installation of these signs is currently available in Wisconsin, and this research has taken an initial step in that direction. The results of this research should assist with more effective and efficient installations of DC signs.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

The objective of this project was to investigate the reported DVC patterns surrounding the DC sign installations along a sample set of roadways in Wisconsin. First, the number and location of reported DVCs near and between DC sign installations were summarized. Then, three years of DVC data were used to determine a typical or expected county and statewide DVC frequencies or rates. The pattern at each individual sign site was investigated. Wisconsin county DVC and DCR data and their interrelationships were also evaluated to help describe and define Wisconsin DVC issue.

ORGANIZATION

This thesis contains five chapters. The first chapter includes an introduction to the issue of DVCs, the project problem statement, and its objectives of this project. Chapter two summarizes existing research related to DC signs and DVC patterns, and discusses some of the factors that may impact DVC locations. Different measurements of roadway safety and crash location ranking methods are also discussed. Chapter three describes the crash analysis site (CAS) selection process for this research and defines the sign installation sites selected. Chapter four includes a discussion of the crash data collected for each CAS, the data analysis methodology used, and the results of that analysis. And DVC spatial patterns are also presented. Chapter five includes the conclusions and specific recommendations reached from this research.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

INTRODUCTION

This chapter includes discussion and documentation of DVC temporal and spatial pattern studies and the factors that contribute to DVCs. Studies related to the potential effectiveness of DC signs and the installation of these signs were also described and discussed. No studies were found that focused on the evaluation of DVCs for DC sign placement. However, summaries of several safety measures and statistical analysis methods for traffic safety studies were included.

DVC TEMPORAL PATTERNS

The factors that impact the DVC temporal patterns include: traffic volume, deer behavior, and human behavior (e.g., hunting) (9, 10, 11, 12). Deer behavior is seasonal, and impacts the level of their movement (9). Those movements appear to have an impact on the number of DVCs that occur (9). In the fall and spring when woodland forage material is scarce, deer tend to search for food and are sometimes attracted to the roadside vegetation (10). Deer rutting occurs during the fall along with hunting season, which also leads to increased deer movement (10). During the winter, deer activities decrease due to their involuntary curtailment of food intake (10). DVC patterns appear to be related to increases in deer movement. For example, they are more prevalent in the spring (e.g., April and May) and fall and/or early winter (e.g., October and November) (See Figure 3). Figure 3 shows that the largest number of DVCs usually occurs in November, and a minor peak in DVCs occurs

FIGURE 3 DVC Temporal Patterns by Month in Wisconsin (4).

during May. Similar DVC patterns have been documented in a number of states (9, 11, 12).

It has also been found that most DVCs occur near sunrise, sunset and at night (9, 10, 13). Deer spend daylight hours in the wooded parts of their home range, but begin to forage near sunset (14). They tend to move back into the woods just before dawn (14). Increases in DVCs near sunset and sunrise may be attributable to a combination of the deer movement and increased traffic volumes. During these times, white-tailed deer also have increased breeding behaviors during dusk and dawn (9, 10).

Some DVC patterns have also been found on a daily basis (9). Data analyzed by Allen and

McCullough indicated that the number of DVCs was highest on Friday evenings but lowest on Monday mornings (9). They hypothesized that traffic volume was higher on Friday evenings.

DVC SPATIAL PATTERNS

There are a large number of factors that are believed to impact the locations of DVCs (9, 11, 12, 15, 17-21). These factors include, but are not limited to, the following: adjacent traffic volume, vehicle speeds, land type (e.g., forestland, rural area), adjacent land use (e.g., residence, buildings, and parks), human population, deer population, mileage of roadways that have DVCs, roadway features (e.g., number of lanes), roadside features (e.g., bridges, gullies, and rivers), roadside visibility (e.g., sight distance), and vegetation cover.

For example, in Ohio, positive correlations were found between the number of county DVCs and county size, amount of forestland, rural land within counties, number of people, and length of major roadway mileage with DVCs (18). And negative correlations were found with the amount of cropland (18). A study in Illinois State found the positive correlations between number of county DVCs and county deer density, along with average daily vehicle miles of travel (VMT) by county (20). The factors with the strongest linear relationships to the number of county DVCs include amount of forestland, length of major roadway with DVCs and VMT (18, 20).

Allen and McCullough also indicated that the DVCs occurred most commonly in areas that

were primarily forestland with large deer population (9). DVCs also appeared to occur approximately in same proportion as the amount of crop, unimproved field, and forest habitat adjacent to the studied segments (9). They also found that almost three times as many crashes occurred on two-lane paved roads than on divided paved highways, and very few DVCs occurred on unpaved roads (9). These results did not take traffic volume into account (9).

Hubbard has investigated the relationships between some of the factors believed to influence the location of a “high” DVC location (11). The database they evaluated had deer harvest numbers, traffic volume estimates, and the distance from the DVC location to the nearest town or city and the nearest city with a population greater than 2,000. The number of bridges within the selected segments and roadway lanes are also recorded. A set of randomly selected one-mile segments of roadway was studied, along with the landscape and roadway characteristics within one mile of the segment sites. The input variables in the model developed included the size of different adjacent vegetation patches and the standard deviation of all patch areas, the number of bridges within the study segments, and the number of roadway lanes (11). The number of bridges, lanes of traffic, average size of grass patches, and the amount of woody patches were positively related to the possibility that the segment would be a “high” DVC location and the number of bridges was found to be a strong predictor. Other factors had negative relationships with this probability. It was suggested that mitigation of DVCs be focused on roadway segments with a high number of bridges (11).

DC SIGN INSTALLATIONS

An assumption by drivers is that DC signs are located in areas that either have experienced or are expected to have an unusual number of DVCs. The only guidance on the installation of these signs from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), however, is that DC signs may be installed at appropriate locations as determined by engineering study or judgment (8). The MUTCD does indicate that a DC sign should be used at locations where unexpected crossing activities might occur, but judgment is required in the determination of these locations that might be considered “unexpected” locations for deer crossings (8).

Because quantitative guidelines for DC sign installation do not exist, a few jurisdictions have attempted to create their own guidelines. For example, the Washtenaw County Michigan Road Commission gave suggestions to the Michigan Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices about the placement of DC signs, which included considerations of the DVC history along the road segment of interest and one mile in each direction (22). The installation of a DC sign in Michigan is warranted if five DVCs have occurred within a twelve-month period (22). It is also suggested that the placement of the sign be reviewed every third year and adjustments made if appropriate (22). For example, if the crash study shows that no DVCs have occurred in any twelve months within the three-year period, the sign may be removed (22). In addition, Iowa recommends that DC signs be installed where posted speed is in excess of 45 miles per hour or obstruction and topography occasionally limit sight distance (23). States such as Iowa and Minnesota also have some crash related criteria for the installation of DC signs, but they are very general in nature. Both states recommend that historical DVC data be reviewed to determine the appropriate location of warning signs (23, 24).

DC SIGN EFFECTIVENESS

Warning signs are most effective (i.e., reduce vehicle speeds) when a condition or hazard that needs a reaction is clear and obvious to the driver. No studies were found that attempted to evaluate the speed reduction effectiveness of ordinary DC signs. In fact, it is generally considered that these signs do not effectively reduce vehicle speeds in their vicinity. Several DC new technologies (with deer detection and/or recording system) were applied to improve sign effectiveness, but only two research studies were found that documented an analysis of how they improved the DC sign effectiveness, as measured by the reduction in vehicular speeds, and/or ratio of deer crossings to deer killed during the test periods.

The first DC sign enhancement study was initiated in 1968 and included two phases (7, 25). In the first phase, DC sign with just the lighted words “DEER XING” and a redesigned DC sign with deer animation and “DEER XING” supplemental sign was considered (See Figure 4 and 5) (25). The signs were installed south of Glenwood Springs, Colorado along a four-lane divided highway with a posted speed limit of 60 mph (25). The vehicle speeds were recorded for 16 days while each sign was turned away from approaching vehicles, and then for additional 28 days with the lighted crossing signs facing the traffic (25). The speed collection station was located 800 feet past the evaluated DC sign (25). The data indicate

FIGURE 4 Lighted “DEER XING” Sign (25)

FIGURE 5 Animated DC Sign with “DEER XING” Supplemental Sign (25)

that the mean vehicle speed was 54.52 miles per hour (mph), 53.03 mph, and 51.59 mph when the sign was turned away from the traffic, with the lighted “DEER XING” sign, and with the animated sign and “DEER XING” supplemental sign, respectively (25). It was concluded that the differences between these three mean speeds were small but statistically significant, and that no significant relationship was found between the number of days when the sign was activated and the average speed of the traffic (25). In other words, there did not appear to be any habituation for the 28 days to these technologies when they were active (25).

During the second phase of the Colorado study the effectiveness of two animated DC signs on DVCs were studied. A six foot by six foot DC sign was updated with four silhouettes of deer that lighted in sequence from right to left. The supplemental warning sign was also changed from “DEER XING” to “DEER XING NEXT MILE” (See Figure 6) (7). The DC signs were activated and deactivated during alternate weeks for 15 weeks. Vehicle speeds were collected at each sign location, and 0.15, 0.65, and 1.5 miles past the signs. Overall, eighty vehicle speeds were randomly chosen for analysis from the 1,800 to 2,200 collected. In addition, nightly spotlight counts were used to estimate the number of deer that crossed the roadways. For analysis purposes it was assumed that each deer observed crossed the roadway twice each night.

The data collected as part of this project showed a number of patterns (7). The mean vehicle speed with the signs deactivated was more, but no more than 3.0 mph greater than with the

FIGURE 6 The Lighted, Animated Deer Crossing Sign(7)

signs on at all three collection locations. The deer crossing to deer road kill ratio with the signs deactivated (i.e., 56.5:1), was also almost equal to the ratio with the signs activated (i.e., 56.9:1) (7). No statistically significant difference was found between these ratios (7).

A short pilot study was also conducted on the speed impacts of placing three deer carcasses on the shoulder 150, 320, and 350 feet past the sign. This was only done one night each week (i.e., 15 days) during the study. The mean vehicle speed significantly decreased by 7.85 mph with the carcasses and the signs deactivated (7). When the signs were activated and the carcasses added, the mean speed also significantly decreased by 6.24 mph (7). However, No significant difference was found between these two average speed reductions with signs on and off (7).

The Colorado researchers concluded that the lighted and animated DC signs were not effective at reducing the number of deer killed (7). The change in wording of the supplemental signs was not valuable (7). The driver response in terms of speed reduction was not enough to have an effect on the crossings per road kill ratio (7). Vehicle speeds were reduced significantly when deer carcasses appeared (7).

A second and more recent DC sign impact study investigated the impacts of using technology to improve the effectiveness of a typical deer crossings sign (26). This study considered the Flashing Light Animal Sensing Host (FLASH) system, which consisted of infrared sensors (with a backup system, a geophone system, which detects ground vibration) for roadside deer detection and data collection (26). Roadside fencing forced deer into a 300-foot wide gap to cross the roadway, and the data collection equipment was installed in that gap (26). If a mule deer was detected on the roadside, signs about 1,000 feet from the detection zone would activate a “Attention: Migratory Deer Crossing” message and a “Deer on Road when Lights are Flashing” message (26).

Vehicle speed and classification data were collected when the signs were not activated and also they were activated (26). This information was collected in both directions of traffic before and within the segment with the roadside detectors (26). Deer activity was also recorded by the FLASH system, the geophone system, and a video camera (26). Overall, it was concluded that the geophone detectors were most reliable of those considered (26). When the infrared and geophone devices activated the signs, a mean operating vehicle speed reduction of 3.6 mph was observed (26). Also, the addition of a roadside deer decoy and flashing lights resulted in average speed reductions of 12.32 and 6.62 mph for passenger vehicles and tractor trailers, respectively (26). Overall, the presence of the decoy appeared to have more impact on the average vehicle speed than the active flashing light sign with and without the appearance of an actual deer (26).

MEASURE OF SAFETY

This research focuses on the measurement of DVC safety near DC sign locations. Crash data and statistics are needed to quantify and describe crashes (27). Crashes are generally described by the types of crashes. Two measures of the magnitude of the DVC problem include crash frequency (e.g., crashes per unit of time) and rate (e.g., crashes per area population, number of registered vehicles, roadway mileage, or vehicle miles of travel) (27). Involvement statistics often focus on the category of the vehicles and drivers involved in the crashes (27). Crash severity is another measure of safety generally expressed in fatalities and injuries (27).

In many cases, including this research, it is also necessary to compare the level of safety at different locations. Those locations with more significant safety problems may need to be considered before those with less significant crash issues. One method of identifying crash-prone locations is to rank locations by crash frequency or crash rate (28). A classic statistical method to identify “high” crash frequency and rate locations is shown in Equation 1. Those that satisfy the inequality in Equation 1 are then considered to have more crash than are usually expected.

[pic] (1)

where OBi = Crash frequency or rate at location i

XA = Mean frequency or rate for all locations under consideration

K = Constant corresponding to a level of confidence in the finding

S = Sample standard deviation for all locations

Equation 1 requires the standard deviation of safety data that is not often available. The rate quality control method in Equation 2 (limited to crash rate) assumes the crash rate follows a Poisson distribution. A location would be considered hazardous if its crash rate satisfies the inequality:

[pic], (2)

where OBRi = Crash rate observed at location i

XS = Mean crash rate for locations with characteristics similar to those of location i

Vi = Volume of traffic at location i, in the same units as the crash rates

K = Constant corresponding to a level of confidence in the finding

Both of these measures of “high” crash location identification have been used in the past and continue to be used.

SUMMARY

DVCs occur most often in spring, fall and early winter. It is believed that this pattern of DVCs is the result of deer movement due to scarcity of food, rutting, and/or hunting season. During the days, DVCs also occur more frequently near sunrise and sunset. This is believed to be the combined result of deer movement and increased traffic flow. During the week, DVCs appear to peak on Friday evenings. Apparently, this is the result of an increase in deer movement and a peak in traffic flow at this time. Factors that contribute to DVCs appear to be deer behavior, traffic volume characteristics, and human activities (e.g., hunting) (9, 10, 11, 12).

A number of studies have shown relationships between several factors and numbers of DVCs at the proximity of a location. These factors include adjacent traffic volume, vehicle speeds, land type (e.g., forestland, rural area), adjacent land use (e.g., residence, buildings, parks), human population, deer population, mileage of roadways that have DVCs, roadway features (e.g., number of lanes), roadside features (e.g., bridges, gullies, rivers), roadside visibility (e.g., sight distance), and vegetation cover (9, 11, 12, 15, 17-21).

No studies were found in the literature review that investigated and evaluated the placement of ordinary DC signs, or quantitatively defined criteria to locate the signs. Previous studies related to DC signs have typically assumed that they are not adequate, but that they are installed in the most appropriate location. For example, two studies completed in 1970s investigated the impact of enhancements to typical DC signs at locations believed to be appropriate. Both studies found that these improvements reduced the average speed of traffic by no more than 3.0 mph. A study of a system that detected deer and activated flashing lights on a DC sign was also summarized. This study found a reduction on vehicle speed, but the average of the reduction was only 1.4 mph. Speeds were reduced more significantly when a deer carcass or a target was placed on the roadside.

In the last section of this chapter, the reader were introduced to safety measures and ranking methods to identify crash-prone locations. A ranking method is used in Chapter 3 to select study counties.

CHAPTER 3

STUDY COUNTY AND SITE SELECTION

INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the methodology used in selection of study site counties as well as specific sign installation sites. The deer carcass removal (DCR) to DVC ratios were calculated for each county. It was assumed that DCRs were the majority of all the deer-vehicle hits. Therefore it was considered that the data from the counties with large DCR to DVC ratios were questionable, and were not considered. Selection of a subset of counties from the rest of the counties examined in this study was based on a comparison of the DCR and DVC frequencies and rates. Those counties that ranked high on the list of frequencies and rates were considered. The magnitude of the DVC problem in Wisconsin was also described through investigating the top ten counties of DCR and DVC frequency and rate lists. Individual sign installation sites were selected based on data availability and apparent installation year of the signs. The data collected is calculated for each of these sites and discussed in this chapter.

SELECTION OF STUDY COUNTIES

Wisconsin has 72 counties, however, the data from Menominee County is questionable because DNR does not collect data in this county (i.e. Indian reservation) and DOT only reported no more than 10 DVCs each year. Therefore it is not included in the analysis and selection process. The Wisconsin DOT has approximately 1,100 DC sign installations described within its current sign management system (SMS). Therefore, the first step in this DVC pattern research had to be the selection of the counties within which sign installation sites would be located. From the 71 counties, the selection was based on the magnitude of ranking of several DCR and DVC frequency and rate measures, which were calculated with average hundred million vehicle miles of travel (HMVMT), roadway mileage, county land area, human population, and pre-hunt deer population estimates. Table 1 indicates the range, mean, and standard deviation of the data used to compare counties and calculate DCR and DVC rates.

TABLE 1 County Descriptive Statistics a

|County Characteristics |Range |Mean |Median |Standard Deviation |

|Total DCRs |25 to 1,902 |670 |562 |448 |

|Total Reported DVCs |19 to 1,177 |280 |243 |235 |

|Average HMVMT |0.8 to 78.2 |8.1 |4.5 |11.4 |

|Length of Roadways |459 to 3,869 |1,576 |1,510 |590 |

|(Miles) | | | | |

|County Land Area |232 to 1,545 |760 |757 |302 |

|(Mile2) | | | | |

|Human Population |5,088 to 940,164 |75,417 |36,804 |127,702 |

|Deer Population Estimates b |1,189 to 39,716 |17,295 |18,528 |10,138 |

a The data were collected from 2000 (4, 29, 30).

b Deer population estimates data were from 1997 (31).

The total number of reported DVCs ranged from 19 to 1,177. The average for the 71 counties was 280 with a standard deviation of 235. The total DCRs, on the other hand, ranged from 25 to 1,902 with average of 670 and standard deviation of 448. Clearly, not all the DVCs were reported or there were a number of collisions with more than one deer involved. As shown in Table 1, there is a wide range of county VMT and human population in Wisconsin and it has a large amount of variation, as their standard deviation values were large and the differences between their mean and median were significant. Length of roadways, county land area, and deer population were less variable relative to their own mean value, although their data have large ranges in terms of the magnitude. The mean HMVMT is only 8.1, but it ranges from 0.8 to 78.2. The average county population is about 75,000. The average area and length of roadways in a county were 760 mile2 and 1,576 miles, respectively. Deer population estimates ranged from 1,189 to 39,716 with an average of 17,295 per county. The data summarized in Table 1 is shown in Appendix A. These data were used to calculate five different DCR and DVC rates for each county (i.e., DVCs or DCRs per HMVMT, DVCs or DCRs per county land area) in addition to their total DVCs and DCRs.

DCR to DVC Ratios

The ratio of DCRs to DVCs was calculated for each county to see how closely these two numbers match within each county. Only those counties with an acceptable ratio were considered in the analysis. The ratios calculated are plotted as shown in Figure 7, and the complete ratio data by county is given in Appendix A. However, the researchers only wanted to consider those counties with what might be considered a typical ratio for Wisconsin. As shown in Figure 7, first, the two counties with ratios larger than 14.85 were viewed as outliers in Wisconsin and eliminated from further consideration. The remaining

FIGURE 7 County DCR to DVC Ratios

county ratios between 0.93 and 14.85 had an averaged 3.43 and the standard deviation was 3.56. However, the county ratios between 0.93 and 4.90, which covered includes 58 out of

the 71 counties, averaged 2.01 and had a standard deviation of only 0.98. Therefore, this range of data (See Figure 7) appears to represent the typical Wisconsin county. Those counties included in the 0 to 4.90 DCR to DVC ratio range were evaluated further.

County DCR and DVC Frequency and/or Rate Comparison

The DCR and DVC frequencies and rates (i.e., based on HMVMT, miles of roadways, county land area, human population, and deer population) were calculated for the 58 counties with DCR to DVC ratios smaller or equal to 4.90. These frequencies and rates are calculated, along with the county DCR to DVC ratios, and are shown in Appendix A with a summary in Table 2. The counties with the highest magnitudes of DCR and DVC

TABLE 2 Frequencies, Rates and DCR/DVC Ratio Descriptive Statistics a

|County Characteristics |Range |Mean |Median |Standard Deviation |

|Total Number of DCRs |25 to 1,902 |655 |544 |463 |

|DCRs |1.9 to 446.9 |124.1 |93.1 |103.2 |

|per HMVMT | | | | |

|DCRs |0.03 to 1.17 |0.42 |0.38 |0.25 |

|per Mile b | | | | |

|DCRs c |0.03 to 3.10 |0.99 |0.79 |0.66 |

|per Mile2 | | | | |

|DCRs |0.2 to 70.8 |16.1 |11.0 |14.8 |

|per Thousand Human Population | | | | |

|DCRs |2.8 to 209.7 |51.8 |34.8 |48.7 |

|per Thousand Deer Population | | | | |

|Total Number of DVCs |19 to 1,177 |330.0 |279 |232.3 |

|DVCs |1.8 to 178.4 |57.8 |51.3 |40.8 |

|per HMVMT | | | | |

|DVCs b |0.02 to 0.45 |0.21 |0.21 |0.11 |

|per Mile | | | | |

|DVCs c |0.03 to 1.15 |0.50 |0.49 |0.31 |

|per Mile2 | | | | |

|DVCs |0.1 to 23.6 |7.3 |5.6 |5.3 |

|per Thousand Human Population | | | | |

|DVCs |0.6 to 127.7 |27.4 |30.2 |30.2 |

|per Thousand Deer Population | | | | |

|DCR/DVC Ratio d |0.93 to 4.90 |2.01 |1.72 |0.98 |

a The data calculated only include the 58 counties with DCR/DVC ratios smaller or equal to 4.90.

b DCRs or DVCs per mile = DCRs or DVCs per miles of roadways by county

c DCRs or DVCs per mile2 = DCRs or DVCs per county land area

d DCR per DVC ratios were calculated from the data from July 1999 to June 2000.

Frequencies and/or rates are listed in Table 3 and Table 4. The top ten counties from each list are discussed and the magnitude of the DVC problems in Wisconsin is described.

TABLE 3 Counties with Highest DCR Frequency and Rates a

| |Total |DCRs |DCRs |DCRs |DCRs |DCRs |

| |DCRs |per HMVMT |per Mile of Roadways|per County Land Area|per Thousand Human |per Thousand Deer |

| | | | | |Population |Population b |

| | | | |(mile2) | | |

|1 |Waupaca |Adams |Waupaca |Waukesha |Florence |Ozaukee |

|2 |Shawano |Shawano |Shawano |Waupaca |Adams |Waukesha |

|3 |Dane |Florence |Green Lake |Winnebago |Waushara |Milwaukee |

|4 |Waukesha |Waupaca |Waushara |Shawano |Shawano |Washington |

|5 |Columbia |Green Lake |Columbia |Ozaukee |Marquette |Brown |

|6 |Marathon |Waushara |Oneida |Green Lake |Waupaca |Walworth |

|7 |Oneida |Oneida |Marquette |Waushara |Oneida |Winnebago |

|8 |Waushara |Marquette |Adams |Columbia |Jackson |Sheboygan |

|9 |Dodge |Taylor |Florence |Brown |Green Lake |Fond du Lac |

|10 |Adams |Clark |Winnebago |Washington |Columbia |Dane |

a The data is mostly from 2000 (29).

b The rates of DCRs per thousand deer population were calculated from data in 1997 (31).

TABLE 4 Counties with Highest DVC Frequency and Rates a

| |Total |DVCs |DVCs |DVCs |DVCs |DVCs |

| |DVCs |per HMVMT |per Mile of Roadways|per County Land Area|per Thousand Human |per Thousand Deer |

| | | | | |Population |Population b |

|1 |Dane |Adams |Waupaca |Sheboygan |Florence |Waukesha |

|2 |Marathon |Shawano |Shawano |Winnebago |Adams |Milwaukee |

|3 |Shawano |Taylor |Green Lake |Waukesha |Shawano |Ozaukee |

|4 |Waupaca |Green Lake |Columbia |Ozaukee |Marquette |Brown |

|5 |Columbia |Waupaca |Sheboygan |Dane |Jackson |Sheboygan |

|6 |Portage |Forest |Portage |Waupaca |Green Lake |Kenosha |

|7 |Waukesha |Florence |Winnebago |Columbia |Taylor |Washington |

|8 |Sheboygan |Marquette |Sauk |Washington |Forest |Dane |

|9 |Sauk |Richland |Dane |Shawano |Waupaca |Rock |

|10 |Winnebago |Portage |Marquette |Green Lake |Columbia |Racine |

a DVC data is from 2000.

b The rates of DVCs per thousand deer population were calculated from the data in 1997 (31).

The 12 ranking lists in Tables 3 and 4 show a significant amount of overlap, and cover 30 out of the 58 remaining counties included. No individual county exists in all 12 lists, but Waupaca and Shawano County are both present in 10 of the lists, respectively. In addition, these two counties and most of the others in the lists appear in the equal (or close to equal) number of DCR and DVC lists. This results from the fact that their DCR and DVC numbers are close enough in magnitude to produce similar lists. In fact, 29 out of the 31 counties considered have the DCR to DVC ratios between 0.93 and 3.00. The other two counties, Oneida and Waushara, with the largest DCR to DVC ratios in the range considered (i.e., 4.65 and 4.02) only appear four and five times, respectively, in the DCR lists. They do not appear in any of the DVC lists. This fact is the result of the large DCR to DVC ratios. The DVC reporting might be questioned in this case. Portage County, on the other hand, which has one of the smallest DCR to DVC ratios of the group considered (i.e., 1.06), appears three times in the DVC lists and none in the DCR lists. This appears to be the result of its relatively small DCR to DVC ratio among the counties considered. Therefore, the DCR data might be questioned for Portage County. Dane and Sheboygan County appear four times in DVC lists, and twice and once in the DCR lists, respectively. They both have low DCR to DVC ratios (i.e., 1.06 and 1.11),

As indicated in the previous paragraph, 31 of the 58 counties evaluated did appear in the 12 top ten lists created. Seven counties only appear in the DCR lists, and six counties only appear in the DVC lists. Most of these ten counties only appeared once or twice in the 12 lists, except the counties discussed in the previous paragraph (i.e., Portage, Oneida, and Waushara County). Thirteen counties appeared in no more than three or fewer lists of the 12 lists. These counties are considered to have less DVC problems than the other 15 counties that appear both in the DCR and DVC lists, and appear three or more times in all these lists. These 16 counties include Adams, Brown, Columbia, Dane, Florence, Green Lake, Marathon, Marquette, Ozaukee, Shawano, Sheboygan, Taylor, Washington, Waukesha, Waupaca, and Winnebago County. These counties, as representative of the state, could be considered for further safety investigation or activities on the DVC issue.

County Selection

Five counties were selected for this research from the 16 counties stated above due to a few considerations. The DCRs and/or DVCs per HMVMT rates in the county were considered to be more important measures of safety than others because of the higher correlations shown between DVCs and HMVMT and/or length of roadways in the past research (18, 20). Therefore, the counties among the top ten of the rankings for DCRs and DVCs per HMVMT and per miles of roadway were prioritized.

As discussed in the county DCR and DVC frequency and rate comparison section, both Waupaca and Shawano appeared in 10 of the 12 lists, respectively. Shawano County was also ranked in top five in ten of these lists and Waupaca County was in top five of nine lists. Therefore, these two counties were selected for this research. Adams County was chosen for use in this research because it was in four of the DCR lists and two of the DVC lists. In addition, it had the highest DCRs and DVCs per HMVMT in Wisconsin. Finally, Dane and Sauk County were selected for consideration because they appeared in several rankings and were close to the University of Wisconsin. In conclusion, the five counties selected for this research include Adams, Dane, Sauk, Shawano, and Waupaca.

SIGN INSTALLATION STUDY SITE SELECTION

A total of 1,116 sign installation sites along the state and interstate highways in Wisconsin are described in the Wisconsin DOT sign management system (SMS). The DC signs were located from the SMS by observing the nearest roadway features (e.g., intersections, county lines) and the distances from them to the signs. Photo log system contains photos of every 1/100 mile of Wisconsin roadways. Errors in locating a specific sign could be up to 0.01 of a mile but the impact of the potential error on the evaluation was not considered large enough to impact the final conclusions of this research.

Eighty-nine DC sign installation sites are in the Wisconsin DOT SMS for the five counties selected for this research. Typically, an individual sign installation site represents one half of a sign pair (i.e., one DC sign in each direction of travel). Supplemental signs on each sign post often indicate the length of the roadway between each pair. There were eight individual signs did not seem to be paired with another one in the opposite direction, so an assumed sign installation site was added for each of the eight signs to form a pair and the segment length was determined by the supplemental sign message. This is usually the result of highway construction, a knocked down sign that was not replaced, or a removal of a sign due to the growth of an urban area.

Twenty-one installation sites were removed because of data availability and analysis purposes, which are described in the following text:

• The signs observed in the photo log during any two years were assumed to exist during and between those two years, and if a sign installation did not appear to exist for 1996 to 1998, it was not considered in this research.

• The signs that were near the Menominee County were not considered because the DVC data from the nearby segments were not available.

• The signs that existed between a designated segment (less than five miles) covered by another pair of signs were removed.

• If an individual sign without supplemental signs did not have an apparent sign on the opposite direction to form pair, this sign is removed because the segment length could not be determined.

In conclusion, after adding eight assumed signs and removing 21 sites from the 89 sites within the five counties found from the SMS, 76 individual sign installation sites, which represented 38 sign pairs, were finally considered for analysis of this research. The sign locations by county are shown from Figure 8 to 12 and each detailed sign locations are shown from Appendix Figure B-1a to B-30a. The sign pair summary by county was shown in Table 5. The average segment length between the sign pairs was 2.8 miles, ranging from 0.7 to 11 miles. And the average distances between the DC signs was from 2.3 to 3.4 miles for the five counties.

TABLE 5 Sign Pair Distances by County

|County |Number of |Average Distance between the Sign Pairs |Range of the Distances between the Sign |

| |Pairs |(Miles) |Pairs (Miles) |

|Adams |5 |2.8 |2.0 to 4.0 |

|Dane |11 |2.5 |0.7 to 5.5 |

|Sauk |8 |3.0 |1.0 to 10.0 |

|Shawano |6 |2.2 |0.9 to 3.6 |

|Waupaca |8 |3.4 |0.9 to 11.0 |

|Overall |38 |2.8 |0.7 to 11.0 |

SUMMARY

This chapter discussed the selection of the counties and sign installation sites used in this study. Data from 71 counties was collected and 12 measures of DCR and DVCs were summarized. The DCR to DVC ratio was calculated for each county to prescreen the counties that have dramatic data difference collected from two agencies. Those counties that have DCR/DVC ratios higher than 4.90, were not selected for further comparison. Then the rest of the 58 counties were ranked by total DCRs and DVCs, in addition to rates related to VMT, roadway mileage, county land area, human population, and deer population. The complete results are shown in Appendix A and are summarized in Tables 2, 3 and 4. A summary was also made on the counties that appeared in the top ten of the 12 lists. The magnitude of the DVC issue by county in Wisconsin was described. Thirty-one counties were

FIGURE 8 Adams County Deer Crossing Sign Locations (32)

FIGURE 9 Dane County Deer Crossing Sign Locations (32)

FIGURE 10 Sauk County Deer Crossing Sign Locations (32)

FIGURE 11 Shawano County Deer Crossing Sign Locations (32)

FIGURE 12 Waupaca County Deer Crossing Sign Locations (32)

present in the 12 lists in Table 3 and 4; and 15 counties appeared both in the DCR and DVC lists more than or equal to three times in these lists.

Five counties were selected. More weight was given to those that appeared at the top ten of the DCRs and/or DVCs per HMVMT and/or length of roadways lists because vehicle travel and the length of roadways have been shown to have a strong relationship with the frequency of DVCs. The counties that are near University of Wisconsin at Madison were also given priority during the selection process. Finally, the counties selected included Adams, Dane, Sauk, Shawano and Waupaca County.

After the county selection, the individual DC sign locations in the Wisconsin DOT SMS were investigated. Signs that appeared to exist between 1996 and 1998 were chosen for further consideration. A total of 89 signs were identified in the five counties, but 21 were removed due to data availability and other analysis purposes. Also, 8 sign installation sites were assumed to pair with the individual signs that had supplemental signs but did not appear to have signs on the opposite direction to form a pair. Therefore, 76 sign installation sites, which formed 38 pairs, were selected for further study in Chapter 4.

CHAPTER 4

DATA ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the evaluation of the 76 DC sign installation locations described in Chapter 3. For investigation purpose, each sign location was first placed into one of 30 crash analysis sites (CASs). The process used to define these 30 CASs is described in this Chapter, and the comparison of the three-year (1996 to 1998) average DVC frequencies (i.e., crashes per mile per year) and rates (i.e., crashes per HMVMT), between and outside each sign pair, is documented. These measures of safety are compared to each other, and to the state and county averages. DVC frequencies and rates for 1/4-mile segments within each CAS are also plotted to investigate each individual pair of signs in them. These sign pairs are categorized and analyzed for DVC patterns. The results of these analyses are presented in this Chapter.

CAS DEFINITION

The 38 sign pairs used in this research were grouped into 30 CASs for evaluation purposes. CASs were defined as the roadway segments that include one or two pairs of DC signs within two miles of each DC sign. Each CAS also contained two miles of roadway upstream of each DC sign, and the roadway segment between each sign pair. Samples of individual and multiple sign pair CASs are shown in Figure 12, and the following three rules were used to define 30 CASs summarized in Table 6:

• Pairs of DC signs were included in the same CAS if they were within two miles of each other

FIGURE 13 Example Single (Upper) and Multiple DC Sign (Lower) Pair CASs

TABLE 6 CAS Locations and Characteristics

|CAS |Number of Signs within|Highway Route a |Nearby Intersection or |Distance from the Southern or |Entire Length of |Length Between |Length Outside |

| |the CAS | |County Line |Western Sign to the Nearest |the CAS |the DC signs |the DC signs |

| | | | |Intersection |(Miles) |(Miles) |(Miles) |

| | | | |(Miles) | | | |

|ADAM-1 |2 |STH 13 |CTH A |2.0 |6.9 |2.9 |4.0 |

|ADAM-2 |4 |STH 13 |STH 16E |0.8 |11.0 |4.0 |5.0 |

| | | | | | |2.0 | |

|ADAM-3 |4 |STH 82 |CTH B |2.8 |11.1 |2.9 |6.0 |

| | | | | | |2.2 | |

|DANE-1 |2 |US 151 |CTH VV Under Bridge |1.6 |4.8 |0.8 |4.0 |

|DANE-2 |2 |US 18 |CTH K Under Bridge |0.2 |8.6 |4.6 |4.0 |

|DANE-3 |2 |STH 69 |CTH D |1.0 |5.2 |1.2 |4.0 |

|DANE-4 |2 |STH 78 |CTH JJ |2.1 |5.9 |1.9 |4.0 |

|DANE-5 |2 |STH 78 |STH 19 |1.7 |8.6 |4.6 |4.0 |

|DANE-6 |2 |US 14 |Iowa and Dane County |0.1 |6.0 |2.0 |4.0 |

| | | |Border | | | | |

|DANE-7 |2 |STH 113 |End Overlap with STH 19E |0.3 |6.0 |2.0 |4.0 |

TABLE 7 CAS Locations and Characteristics (Cont.)

|CAS |Number of Signs within|Highway Route a |Nearby Intersection or |Distance from the Southern or |Entire Length of |Length Between |Length Outside |

| |the CAS | |County Line |Western Sign to the Nearest |the CAS |the DC signs |the DC signs |

| | | | |Intersection |(Miles) |(Miles) |(Miles) |

| | | | |(Miles) | | | |

|DANE-8 |4 |STH 19 |IH 90 EB and IH94 EB |1.0 |7.5 |0.7 |5.8 |

| | | | | | |1.0 | |

|DANE-9 |4 |US 14 |CTH F |1.3 |14.1 |3.1 |5.5 |

| | | | | | |5.5 | |

|SAUK-1 |2 |STH 33 |CTH V |1.9 |5.0 |1.0 |4.0 |

|SAUK-2 |2 |US 12 |CTH C |3.2 |5.4 |1.4 |4.0 |

|SAUK-3 |2 |STH 23 |CTH GG |0.1 |6.0 |2.0 |4.0 |

|SAUK-4 |2 |STH 78 |Begin Overlap with STH |0.6 |5.0 |1.0 |4.0 |

| | | |113N | | | | |

|SAUK-5 |2 |STH 23 |CTH G |1.0 |10.0 |6.0 |4.0 |

|SAUK-6 |2 |IH 90 |CTH A Over |0.2 |14.0 |10.0 |4.0 |

|SAUK-7 |4 |STH 23 |CTH CH |1.1 |7.2 |1.1 |5.0 |

| | | | | | |1.1 | |

|SHAW-1 |2 |STH 156 |End Overlap with STH 187N |2.6 |5.8 |1.8 |4.0 |

|SHAW-2 |2 |US 45 |STH 153 |0.2 |7.0 |3.0 |4.0 |

TABLE 8 CAS Locations and Characteristics (Cont.)

|CAS |Number of Signs within|Highway Route a |Nearby Intersection or |Distance from the Southern or |Entire Length of |Length Between |Length Outside |

| |the CAS | |County Line |Western Sign to the Nearest |the CAS |the DC signs |the DC signs |

| | | | |Intersection |(Miles) |(Miles) |(Miles) |

| | | | |(Miles) | | | |

|SHAW-3 |4 |STH 22 |Waupaca and Shawano County|0.9 |7.3 |1.6 |4.8 |

| | | |Line | | | | |

| | | | | | |1.0 | |

|SHAW-4 |4 |STH 47 |End Overlap with STH 156 |0.2 |11.4 |2.1 |5.7 |

| | | | | | |3.6 | |

|WAUP-1 |2 |STH 22 |CTH QQ |2.8 |6.5 |2.5 |4.0 |

|WAUP-2 |2 |STH 161 |CTH E |0.3 |4.9 |0.9 |4.0 |

|WAUP-3 |2 |STH 22 |End Overlap with STH 45N |2.5 |5.8 |1.8 |4.0 |

|WAUP-4 |2 |US 45 |CTH C |0.0 |9.3 |5.3 |4.0 |

|WAUP-5 |2 |STH 110 |End Overlap with STH 22S |0.3 |6.0 |2.0 |4.0 |

|WAUP-6 |2 |STH 54 |CTH O |0.2 |15.0 |11.0 |4.0 |

|WAUP-7 |3 |STH 82 |CTH QQ |1.7 |8.9 |1.0 |5.0 |

| | | | | | |3.0 | |

a STH means State Highway, US means US Highway, IH means Interstate Highway, and CTH means County Highway.

• The CAS roadway segment follows the primary state highway of interest for its entire length

• The CAS should contain two miles of roadway upstream of the DC signs on each end of the group.

Table 6 summarizes the physical characteristics of the CASs used in the analysis. The number of the sign installations in each CAS, its location, length (both between and outside the sign pairs), and the location maps for each CAS were also included in Appendix B. Overall, 8 of the 30 have two pairs of signs within them, and 22 sites have only one sign pair. The average length of the multiple sign pair sites was approximately 9.8 miles, and the total length of the sites ranged from 7.2 to 14.1 miles. Single pair segments averaged 7.2 miles long and they ranged from 4.8 to 15.0 miles. The average lengths between the DC signs were 3.2 and 4.5 miles for single pair and multiple pair CASs, respectively. The average segment between the DC signs within multiple pair CASs was higher than single pair CASs. Overall, the segment length outside the pairs ranged from 4.0 to 6.0 miles with average of 4.4 miles. The roadway length between the DC signs ranged from 0.7 to 11.0 miles and averaged 3.5 miles. And the average total length of the 30 sites was 7.9 miles.

CAS ANALYSIS

In this section, CAS DVC frequencies and rates are described and summarized. These two measures of safety were calculated for the CAS roadway segments between the DC sign pairs, outside the sign pairs and for the entire CAS site. The segment averages of the DVC frequencies and rates were investigated for each CAS site by comparing them to the state and county averages. The results of this investigation are described below. DVC frequencies and rates between and outside the DC signs in each CAS were also compared to each other. In addition, the differences in the DVC frequencies and rates of the CASs with single and multiple DC sign pairs were evaluated. The goal was to determine whether multiple pair of DC signs had an impact on driver behavior that impacted the DVC patterns.

CAS Crash Statistics

DVC frequencies and rates were calculated for all 30 CASs as part of this research. A summary of these numbers for each CAS and by county is shown in Table 7. This information could be useful in the determination of whether the signs appeared to designate areas with higher than expected deer-vehicle interaction (when compared to the immediately adjacent roadway segments). In general, the frequencies and rates along each CAS follow the same pattern. Most of the frequencies and rates are higher between the DC signs of the CASs than outside the DC signs. The average frequencies and rates between the DC signs are 136 and 146 percent higher than outside the DC signs, respectively. Ten and eight CASs, however, show higher frequencies and rates, respectively, outside the DC signs than between. The average DVC frequencies and rates between the DC signs in those CASs are 67 and 66 percent of those outside the DC signs, respectively. A statistical analysis of comparing the between and outside frequencies and/or rates is described later in this Chapter.

TABLE 9 CAS DVC Frequencies and Rates a

|CAS |Frequency (Between)|Frequency (Outside)|Frequency (Overall)|Rate (Between) |Rate (Outside) |Rate (Overall) |

| |b |b |b | | | |

|Adam-1 |4.32 |3.08 |3.61 |265.6 |186.1 |220.2 |

|Adam-2 |3.92 |1.67 |3.07 |213.2 |88.2 |161.9 |

|Adam-3 |1.23 |1.44 |1.33 |108.5 |128.4 |118.4 |

|Adams County Average |3.16 |2.06 |2.67 |195.8 |134.2 |166.8 |

|Dane-1 |0.85 |1.75 |1.60 |15.9 |31.3 |28.9 |

|Dane-2 |2.01 |1.25 |1.66 |57.5 |41.0 |50.0 |

|Dane-3 |3.83 |1.75 |2.23 |290.1 |141.3 |176.8 |

|Dane-4 |3.09 |2.67 |2.81 |440.2 |342.5 |375.0 |

|Dane-5 |2.70 |2.25 |2.49 |504.8 |441.9 |475.2 |

|Dane-6 |6.60 |1.42 |3.13 |236.0 |45.1 |108.7 |

|Dane-7 |3.33 |1.25 |1.94 |134.3 |24.7 |61.2 |

|Dane-8 |2.56 |1.91 |2.17 |134.7 |54.4 |76.9 |

|Dane-9 |4.13 |1.85 |3.21 |104.9 |47.5 |80.2 |

|Dane County Average |3.23 |1.79 |2.36 |213.2 |130.0 |159.2 |

|Sauk-1 |2.56 |3.58 |3.37 |126.0 |180.6 |169.7 |

|Sauk-2 |1.70 |3.67 |3.17 |41.8 |106.9 |91.4 |

|Sauk-3 |1.17 |1.08 |1.11 |190.3 |162.4 |171.7 |

|Sauk-4 |1.67 |0.92 |1.07 |253.7 |169.6 |186.4 |

|Sauk-5 |1.61 |0.25 |1.07 |169.8 |32.6 |114.9 |

|Sauk-6 |1.50 |2.42 |1.76 |12.6 |19.0 |14.4 |

|Sauk-7 |2.53 |1.12 |1.48 |219.7 |118.3 |136.3 |

|Sauk County Average |1.82 |1.86 |1.86 |144.8 |112.8 |126.4 |

|Shaw-1 |1.65 |0.92 |1.15 |343.7 |193.2 |239.0 |

|Shaw-2 |1.33 |1.50 |1.43 |214.9 |210.3 |212.2 |

|Shaw-3 |2.56 |0.83 |1.42 |412.3 |105.1 |205.9 |

|Shaw-4 |1.35 |0.89 |1.06 |73.1 |49.7 |58.0 |

|Shawano County Average |1.72 |1.04 |1.26 |261.0 |139.6 |178.8 |

|Waup-1 |1.07 |2.75 |2.10 |224.8 |236.0 |231.7 |

|Waup-2 |0.76 |1.42 |1.30 |182.7 |388.1 |347.0 |

|Waup-3 |0.94 |1.08 |1.04 |74.9 |74.3 |71.3 |

|Waup-4 |3.01 |0.58 |1.97 |130.6 |23.1 |84.1 |

|Waup-5 |1.83 |0.83 |1.17 |311.3 |89.6 |163.5 |

|Waup-6 |1.70 |2.00 |1.78 |51.2 |70.9 |56.4 |

|Waup-7 |3.53 |3.43 |3.20 |262.2 |262.6 |210.9 |

|Waupaca County Average |1.83 |1.73 |1.79 |176.8 |163.5 |166.4 |

a Frequencies are in DVCs per mile per year and rates are in DVCs per HMVMT. DVC data are from 1996 to 1998.

b Between = CAS roadway segment between DC sign pair; Outside = CAS roadway segments not between the DC sign pairs; and Overall = entire CAS roadway segment.

A per county evaluation (See Table 7) revealed that the CAS frequencies ranged from 1.72 to 3.23 DVCs per mile per year between the DC signs, 1.04 to 2.06 DVCs per mile per year outside the DC signs, and 1.26 to 2.67 DVCs per mile per year for the entire CAS. Adams County had the highest average DVC frequency outside the DC signs and overall. In addition, Dane County had the highest average DVC frequency (i.e., 3.23 DVCs per mile per year) between the DC signs. The smallest average DVC frequency between and outside the DC signs and within the entire CAS was in Shawano County. The differences in the average DVC frequencies between the DC signs and outside the DC signs were no more than 0.1 DVCs per mile per year in Sauk County (i.e., 1.82 and 1.86 DVCs per mile per year) and Waupaca County (i.e., 1.83 and 1.73 DVCs per mile per year). The average frequency for the Sauk county CASs is slightly higher outside than between the DC signs. In the other four counties, the average frequencies between the DC signs are 6 to 80 percent higher than outside the DC signs.

As indicated, the DVC rate for each CAS follows a similar pattern to that of the DVC frequency. The differences observed in these patterns take into account for changes in VMT within the CASs. The average DVC rates calculated for each county ranged from 144.8 to 261.0 DVCs per HMVMT between the DC signs, 112.58 to 163.5 DVCs per HMVMT outside the DC signs, and 126.4 to 178.8 DVCs per HMVMT. In all cases, the DVC rate outside the DC signs was smaller than between the DC signs. The percent differences ranged from 8 to 87 percent. Shawano County had the highest average DVC rate between DC signs and overall (i.e., 261.0 and 178.8 DVCs per HMVMT). Waupaca County had the largest DVC rate outside the DC signs (i.e., 163.5 DVCs per HMVMT). Both of these counties had average or less than average CAS DVC frequencies between their signs, but have comparably low volume level that may raise their DVC rates. The smallest county DVC rates between and outside the DC signs and overall was in Sauk County (i.e., 144.8, 112.8 and 126.4 DVCs per HMVMT, respectively).

Table 8 contains the descriptive statistics of the DVC data for each CAS. The average CAS DVC frequency between the DC signs for all CASs was 2.37 DVCs per mile per year with a standard deviation of 1.31 DVCs per mile per year, and a range from 0.76 to 6.60 DVCs per mile per year. For the segments outside the DC signs, the average DVC frequency was 1.72 DVCs per mile per year and ranged from 0.25 to 3.67 DVCs per mile per year. These results have a difference of 36.5 percent from the overall average, and produce a ratio of about 1.40. Overall, in the CASs, the average DVC frequency was 2.00 DVCs per mile per year and ranged from 1.04 to 3.61 DVCs per mile per year.

The mean DVC rate between the DC signs was about 193.4 DVCs per HMVMT and ranged from 12.6 to 504.8 DVCs per HMVMT. The DVC rate outside the DC signs, on the other hand, was about 135.5 DVCs per HMVMT and ranged from 19.0 to 441.9. The average DVC rate between the DC signs was 40 percent larger than the average outside DVC rate. In other words, the ratio of the CAS DVC rate between and outside the DC sign was 1.40. The overall average DVC rate for the CASs was 156.6 DVCs per HMVMT, ranging from 14.4 to 475.2 DVCs per HMVMT.

TABLE 10 CAS DVC Frequency and Rates Descriptive Statistics.

|DVC Safety Measures a |Range |Mean |Standard |

| | | |Deviation |

|Frequency (Between) |0.76 to 6.60 |2.37 |1.31 |

|Frequency (Outside) |0.25 to 3.67 |1.72 |0.91 |

|Frequency (Overall) |1.04 to 3.61 |2.00 |0.83 |

|Rate (Between) |12.6 to 504.8 |193.4 |125.3 |

|Rate (Outside) |19.0 to 441.9 |135.5 |110.7 |

|Rate (Overall) |14.4 to 475.2 |156.6 |105.7 |

a Between = CAS roadway segment between DC sign pair; Outside = CAS roadway segments not between the DC sign pairs; and Overall = entire CAS roadway segment. Frequencies are in DVCs per mile per year and rates are in DVCs per HMVMT.

CAS Safety Evaluation

The DVC frequencies and rates calculated for the CASs and discussed in the previous section were also evaluated in detail in this section. Each frequency and rate was first compared to the average DVC frequencies and rates in the state and the county of interest. The average DVC frequency and rate between and outside the DC signs in each CAS were also compared more closely. The average DVC frequency and rate in CASs with single DC sign pairs were also compared to the CASs with multiple DC sign pairs. These tasks were completed to produce a better idea of the DVC patterns along these roadway segments.

State and County Average Comparison

The DVC measures calculated for each CAS were compared to state and county average DVC measures to determine the significance of their DVC problems (if any). The state average DVC rate for 1996 to 1998 was calculated to be 36.2 DVCs per HMVMT (See Table 9). Twenty-eight of the 30 CASs considered in this research had DVC rates between the DC signs that were higher than the state average. However, 25 of the 30 CASs also had higher than state average rates outside the DC signs. Overall, the average DVC rate between the

TABLE 11 State and County Average DVC Measures (1996 to 1998)

| |County |State a |

| |Adams |Dane |Sauk |Shawano |Waupaca | |

|Average DVC Frequencies |0.29 |0.32 |0.29 |0.25 |0.41 |0.17 |

|(DVCs per Mile per Year) | | | | | | |

|Average DVC Rates |186.6 |30.6 |71.8 |97.1 |130.3 |36.2 |

|(DVCs per HMVMT) | | | | | | |

|Between to Outside DVC Frequency Ratio |1.53 |1.95 |1.91 |1.82 |1.58 |—— |

|Between to Outside DVC Rate Ratio |1.56 |2.41 |1.64 |2.05 |1.90 |—— |

a Dash line means incomplete research.

signs was more than five times greater than the state average, and the average DVC rate outside the DC signs was only about four times the state average (See Tables 7 and 9). These results are not completely surprising as the counties chosen for evaluation (See Chapter 3) were shown to have higher than typical DVC measures. In addition, these results support the hypothesis that the signs designate higher than typical DVC locations. The between, outside and overall county CAS DVC rate averages were also 4.0 to 7.2, 3.1 to 7.3 and 3.5 to 7.9 times the state average, respectively. The overall state average DVC frequency was 0.17 DVCs per mile per year (See Table 9), and all the roadway segments in the CAS had the DVC frequency 1.47 to 38.8 times this state average. In addition, the between, outside, and overall county CAS DVC frequency averages were 10.1 to 19, 6.1 to 12.1 and 7.4 to 15.7 times the statewide average.

The CAS DVC frequency and rate comparison by county average was done to evaluate

whether these sites were more than typical as compared to their individual counties. Each of the 30 CAS had average DVC frequencies larger than the county average. However, the data showed that, for example, in Dane County the average CAS DVC rate between the DC signs was almost seven times the county average, and the average rate outside the DC signs was four times the average. Sauk, Shawano and Waupaca County had average CAS DVC rates between the DC signs that were 1.4 to 2.7 and 1.3 to 1.6 times, respectively, higher than the county average, but in Adams County, the average CAS DVC rate between the DC signs was only 1.04 times the county average and the outside rate was just 72 percent of the county average. The DVC rates overall in all but Adams County was 1.3 to 5.2 times their county average. However, the overall DVC rate in Adams County was 89 percent of its county average DVC rate.

These results indicate that for the most part the CASs considered in this research were high DVC location even within their county, and that the rates between the DC signs were primarily higher than outside the DC signs. The exception to this conclusion is in Adams County where the sample size is small (i.e., three cases) and the county average is higher than all but one CAS overall rate and two of the rates between the DC signs. The locations in Adams County appear to be closer to the typical safety measure in the county overall.

Between and Outside the DC signs CAS Comparison

The differences between the DVC frequencies and rates between and outside the DC signs in all 30 CASs were statistically evaluated with a paired T-test. The results are in Table 10, and

TABLE 12 CAS Between and Outside Paired T-Test DVC Comparison Results b

|DVC |Mean Difference a |Standard Deviation of the Difference a |P-Value |

|Measures | | | |

|DVC Frequency |0.65 |1.45 |0.02 |

|(DVCs per mile per year | | | |

|DVC Rate |57.9 |98.5 |0.003 |

|(DVCs per HMVMT) | | | |

a Difference = DVC Measure Between the DC Signs – DVC Measure Outside the DC Signs

b The sample size was 30.

were used to determine if the DVC measures are significantly higher between the DC signs than outside the DC signs. The DC frequency (i.e., DVCs per mile per year) and DVC rate between, outside the DC signs and overall for the 30 CASs are shown in Table 7. In the paired T-test, the frequencies and rates between and outside the DC signs of each CAS were compared with their calculated difference. The average frequency difference was 0.65 DVCs per mile per year, and the average difference in DVC rate was 57.9 DVCs per HMVMT. The test results indicated that these average differences were both significantly different than zero at a 95 percent level of confidence. In other words the average DVC frequencies and rates between the DC signs evaluated were significantly larger than the segments adjacent to the signs.

Single and Multiple DC Sign Pair DVC Comparison

The 30 CASs defined previously consisted of 22 sites with only one DC sign pair and 8 sites with two DC sign pairs. A comparison of the DVC patterns in these two groups was completed to test a hypothesis of the author of this thesis. It was speculated that multiple DC sign pairs (i.e., those DC sign pairs within two miles of each other) along a roadway segment may have an influence on driver behavior that impacts DVC safety and differs from that of only a single isolated DC sign pair, and that this difference could result in changes in DVC patterns along the segment of roadway.

An analysis of the DVC patterns along the multiple and single DC sign pair roadway segments indicated that they were different. For example, the average DVC frequency (on a per mile per year basis) difference between and outside the signs of the multiple pair CASs was 1.08 DVCs per mile per year, which was about 120 percent higher than the one of the single pair CASs (i.e., 0.49 DVCs per mile per year). And the average difference of DVC rates between and outside the signs in multiple pairs (i.e., 48.3 DVCs per HMVMT) was also about 75 percent higher than the one within those with single DC single pairs (i.e., 84.3 DVCs per HMVMT). It appeared that the average DVC frequency and rate differences found in the multiple DC sign pair CASs were significantly larger than those in the single DC sign pair CASs. Due to the small sample size, a non-parametric statistical analysis was done to test whether this statement is statistically true. The sample size of the single and multiple pair analysis groups were not large enough to assume a normal distribution. Therefore, a non-parametric test, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test (or Mann-Whitney test), was completed instead of a T-test to test whether the changes in of multiple and single DC sign pair locations were significant in DVC measure differences between and outside the DC signs. However, this test, despite the percent differences shown in the average DVC measures, found no significant differences between the changes in either measure (See Table 11) of multiple and single pair DC sign locations. In fact, the p-values were 0.17 for the DVC rates and 0.64 for DVC frequency. The apparent conflict in the average percent difference calculations and the results of this statistical test require further investigation. In addition, the actual cause of any difference in DVC patterns that might be found would also need to be identified.

INDIVIDUAL SIGN PAIR ANALYSIS

The DVC patterns between and within two miles of each DC sign pair (See Chapter 3) was also investigated in addition to the CAS analysis previously described. This analysis was completed to determine if a closer evaluation of these DVC patterns would result in any new information about the location of the sign installation and the DVCs near them. It was also done to better define those pairs, which appear to be in the correct location with respect to DVC patterns. Each site was divided into 1/4-mile segments, and the average DVC rates (per HMVMT) and total DVCs calculated for each segments. Data from 1996 to 1998 was used to make those calculations. Examples plots of these measures and the DC sign locations are shown in Figures 14 to 16. The remaining plots are in Appendix A.

Overall Group Pattern Summary

The first step in the analysis of the individual DC sign pairs was to group them. The 38 pairs described in Chapter 3 were grouped into three different DVC pattern categories. These categories were based on the location of four DVC measures of safety. The locations of the peak total 1/4-mile frequency and 1/4-mile DVC rate per HMVMT were noted in each individual DVC pair segment. In addition, the frequency and rates were calculated between the DC signs and for the two-mile segments outside the DC signs. The segment (between

NOTE: The crash patterns are for data from 1996 to 1998. The X-axis was divided into ¼ mile sub-segment for both figures.

FIGURE 14 Example DVC Sign Pair Pattern (Peak Between DC Sign Pair)

NOTE: The crash patterns are for data from 1996 to 1998. The X-axis was divided into ¼ mile sub-segment for both figures.

FIGURE 15 Example DVC Sign Pair Pattern (Conflicting Peak Locations)..

NOTE: The crash patterns are for data from 1996 to 1998. The X-axis was divided into ¼ mile sub-segment for both figures.

FIGURE 16 Example DVC Sign Pair Pattern (Peak Outside DC Sign Pair)

and outside the DC signs) where the peak average frequency and rate was then identified. A DC sign pair segment was categorized as a positive sign location (PSL) if all four measures appeared between the DC signs (See Figure 14), a negative sign location (NSL) if all four measures appeared outside the DC signs (See Figure 16), and a conflicting sign location (CSL) if the four measures appeared between and outside the DC signs (See Figure 15).

Overall, 14 pairs of DC signs were grouped as PSLs, 11 pairs of signs as negative DC sign locations, and 13 pairs of signs as CSLs. The focus of this analysis and investigation was on those in the PSL category because these locations had all four measures of safety appearing between the DC signs and these were believed to be especially strong candidates for the signs being in useful locations. The data for these locations will be used with other summarized information to suggest some sign installation criteria. The average total DVC frequency and rate between the DC signs and outside DC sign segment for each DC sign pair were calculated for each PSL. The results of these calculations are shown in Table 11. Additionally, the smallest ratios of the between to outside ratios of DVC frequency and rate were calculated and are shown in Table 11.

The average DVC frequencies for the PSLs ranged from 0 to 3.67 DVCs per mile per year for the two miles outside each signs and from 1.61 to 6.60 DVCs per mile per year between the DC signs. The average DVC frequencies outside the DC signs were 1.38 and 1.40 DVCs per mile per year, and 3.62 DVCs per mile per year between the DC signs. The minimum

TABLE 13 DVC Frequencies, Rates and Between to Outside Sign Ratios for PSLs.

|CAS a |DVC Frequencies |DVC Rates |

| |(DVCs per Mile per Year) |(DVCs per HMVMT) |

| |North or West Outside |Between Signs |South or East Outside Segment|

| |Segment1 | |2 |

|Milwaukee |0.93 |Clark |1.97 |

|Ashland |0.96 |Dodge |1.99 |

|Sauk |0.98 |La Crosse |2.02 |

|Grant |1.02 |Brown |2.06 |

|Portage |1.06 |Eau Claire |2.07 |

|Door |1.09 |Calumet |2.09 |

|Sheboygan |1.11 |Green Lake |2.11 |

|Bayfield |1.16 |Adams |2.20 |

|Green |1.18 |Waukesha |2.32 |

|Monroe |1.18 |Chippewa |2.49 |

|Richland |1.22 |Dunn |2.49 |

|Rock |1.23 |Shawano |2.57 |

|Kenosha |1.26 |Waupaca |2.72 |

|Dane |1.36 |Florence |2.86 |

|Vernon |1.39 |Iowa |3.06 |

|Pierce |1.39 |Crawford |3.63 |

|Taylor |1.41 |Douglas |3.65 |

|Marathon |1.42 |Burnett |4.00 |

|Forest |1.48 |Waushara |4.02 |

|Lincoln |1.49 |Oneida |4.65 |

|Racine |1.50 |Buffalo |4.89 |

|Washington |1.54 |Pepin |4.90 |

|Lafayette |1.55 |Washburn |6.53 |

|Outagamie |1.61 |Price |8.40 |

|Jefferson |1.63 |Barron |8.56 |

|Iron |1.67 |Polk |8.57 |

|Columbia |1.69 |Wood |10.42 |

|Ozaukee |1.72 |Vilas |11.22 |

|Saint Croix |1.72 |Marinette |11.60 |

|Fond du Lac |1.72 |Oconto |12.00 |

|Juneau |1.79 |Langlade |13.66 |

|Winnebago |1.81 |Sawyer |14.33 |

|Walworth |1.83 |Kewaunee |14.85 |

|Manitowoc |1.84 |Trempealeau |35.13 |

|Jackson |1.93 |Rusk |49.33 |

|Marquette |1.95 |State Average |2.20 |

a This list does not include Menominee County and the ratios are calculated from the data from July 1999 to June 2000.

TABLE A-2a County DCR Measure Rankings a

|County |Total |County |DCRs |County |DCRs |

| |DCRs | |per | |per Mile of Roadway |

| | | |HMVMT b | | |

|Waupaca |1902 |Adams |446.9 |Waupaca |1.17 |

|Shawano |1817 |Shawano |405.5 |Shawano |1.00 |

|Dane |1799 |Florence |354.7 |Green Lake |0.97 |

|Waukesha |1724 |Waupaca |340.4 |Waushara |0.89 |

|Columbia |1449 |Green Lake |327.5 |Columbia |0.84 |

|Marathon |1383 |Waushara |317.7 |Oneida |0.79 |

|Oneida |1339 |Oneida |288.0 |Marquette |0.76 |

|Waushara |1177 |Marquette |253.6 |Adams |0.72 |

|Dodge |1065 |Taylor |228.3 |Florence |0.69 |

|Adams |1032 |Clark |216.1 |Winnebago |0.65 |

|Fond du Lac |989 |Buffalo |203.0 |Waukesha |0.61 |

|Dunn |959 |Pepin |202.0 |Fond du Lac |0.57 |

|Brown |955 |Forest |166.9 |Eau Claire |0.57 |

|Winnebago |951 |Dunn |163.4 |Dunn |0.55 |

|Eau Claire |872 |Richland |156.6 |Calumet |0.53 |

|Clark |862 |Columbia |137.8 |Dodge |0.53 |

|Saint Croix |821 |Vernon |130.8 |La Crosse |0.52 |

|Outagamie |770 |Jackson |127.7 |Ozaukee |0.52 |

|Portage |769 |Calumet |127.5 |Washington |0.49 |

|Manitowoc |744 |Dodge |118.8 |Jackson |0.47 |

|Washington |706 |Iowa |117.6 |Saint Croix |0.47 |

|Jackson |692 |Green |107.4 |Dane |0.46 |

|Green Lake |676 |Portage |97.9 |Manitowoc |0.45 |

|Marquette |649 |Lafayette |97.7 |Brown |0.43 |

|Chippewa |642 |Marathon |96.8 |Jefferson |0.43 |

|Rock |601 |Chippewa |95.9 |Marathon |0.42 |

|La Crosse |599 |Door |95.9 |Portage |0.42 |

|Jefferson |594 |Fond du Lac |95.5 |Outagamie |0.41 |

|Sauk |574 |Douglas |93.6 |Clark |0.39 |

|Walworth |514 |Lincoln |92.6 |Buffalo |0.36 |

|Sheboygan |507 |Eau Claire |89.9 |Walworth |0.35 |

|Douglas |504 |Manitowoc |89.5 |Sheboygan |0.33 |

|Monroe |494 |Pierce |88.1 |Sauk |0.32 |

|Ozaukee |466 |Burnett |87.7 |Lincoln |0.31 |

|Calumet |439 |Saint Croix |85.7 |Iowa |0.31 |

|Taylor |438 |Crawford |79.8 |Pepin |0.31 |

|Lincoln |408 |Sauk |74.9 |Chippewa |0.31 |

|Iowa |404 |Grant |73.0 |Monroe |0.30 |

TABLE A-2a County DCR Measure Rankings (cont.) a

|County |Total |County |DCRs |County |DCRs |

| |DCRs | |per | |per Mile of Roadway |

| | | |HMVMT b | | |

|Juneau |402 |Monroe |67.2 |Taylor |0.30 |

|Vernon |383 |Jefferson |63.2 |Rock |0.30 |

|Grant |378 |Juneau |63.1 |Green |0.27 |

|Buffalo |372 |La Crosse |61.5 |Door |0.27 |

|Florence |360 |Winnebago |58.6 |Richland |0.27 |

|Door |336 |Washington |55.4 |Juneau |0.27 |

|Green |334 |Outagamie |50.7 |Douglas |0.24 |

|Richland |301 |Sheboygan |50.4 |Vernon |0.23 |

|Pierce |250 |Walworth |47.1 |Pierce |0.20 |

|Racine |232 |Ozaukee |47.0 |Kenosha |0.20 |

|Forest |203 |Waukesha |43.5 |Forest |0.19 |

|Kenosha |202 |Brown |43.1 |Racine |0.18 |

|Crawford |185 |Dane |39.3 |Grant |0.18 |

|Lafayette |177 |Rock |37.1 |Crawford |0.17 |

|Milwaukee |152 |Bayfield |30.6 |Lafayette |0.15 |

|Pepin |142 |Ashland |22.1 |Burnett |0.09 |

|Burnett |140 |Racine |14.4 |Milwaukee |0.05 |

|Bayfield |104 |Kenosha |14.1 |Bayfield |0.05 |

|Ashland |51 |Iron |13.4 |Ashland |0.04 |

|Iron |25 |Milwaukee |1.9 |Iron |0.03 |

a These lists do not include Menominee County and the counties with DCR to DVC ratio larger than 4.90. The DCR data are from July

1999 to June 2000 and the other data are from 2000 (29, 30).

b HMVMT = Hundred Million Vehicle Miles of Travel

TABLE A-2b County DCR Measures a

|County |DCRs |County |DCRs |County |DCRs |

| |Per Mile2 of County | |Per Thousand Human | |Per Thousand Deer |

| |Land Area | |Population | |Population |

|Waukesha |3.10 |Florence |70.8 |Ozaukee |209.7 |

|Waupaca |2.53 |Adams |55.4 |Waukesha |200.3 |

|Winnebago |2.17 |Waushara |50.8 |Milwaukee |192.6 |

|Shawano |2.03 |Shawano |44.7 |Washington |152.8 |

|Ozaukee |2.01 |Marquette |41.0 |Brown |152.0 |

|Green Lake |1.91 |Waupaca |36.8 |Walworth |146.4 |

|Waushara |1.88 |Oneida |36.4 |Winnebago |144.7 |

|Columbia |1.87 |Jackson |36.2 |Sheboygan |123.8 |

|Brown |1.81 |Green Lake |35.4 |Fond du Lac |110.7 |

|Washington |1.64 |Columbia |27.6 |Dane |102.5 |

|Adams |1.59 |Buffalo |26.9 |Dodge |100.9 |

|Dane |1.50 |Clark |25.7 |Calumet |87.5 |

|Marquette |1.42 |Dunn |24.1 |Racine |83.2 |

|Calumet |1.37 |Taylor |22.3 |Jefferson |79.7 |

|Fond du Lac |1.37 |Forest |20.3 |Outagamie |79.0 |

|Eau Claire |1.37 |Pepin |19.7 |Manitowoc |71.3 |

|La Crosse |1.32 |Iowa |17.7 |Columbia |69.3 |

|Manitowoc |1.26 |Richland |16.8 |Rock |66.2 |

|Dodge |1.21 |Juneau |16.5 |Kenosha |61.0 |

|Outagamie |1.20 |Lincoln |13.8 |Saint Croix |60.9 |

|Oneida |1.19 |Vernon |13.7 |Waupaca |58.6 |

|Saint Croix |1.14 |Saint Croix |13.0 |Green Lake |54.7 |

|Dunn |1.13 |Dodge |12.4 |Shawano |48.4 |

|Jefferson |1.07 |Monroe |12.1 |Green |47.2 |

|Sheboygan |0.99 |Door |12.0 |Eau Claire |46.8 |

|Portage |0.95 |Douglas |11.6 |Door |46.1 |

|Walworth |0.93 |Chippewa |11.6 |La Crosse |45.4 |

|Marathon |0.90 |Portage |11.4 |Waushara |45.1 |

|Rock |0.83 |Marathon |11.0 |Adams |40.8 |

|Kenosha |0.74 |Lafayette |11.0 |Marquette |38.2 |

|Florence |0.74 |Calumet |10.8 |Florence |37.9 |

|Clark |0.71 |Crawford |10.7 |Sauk |36.8 |

|Jackson |0.70 |Sauk |10.4 |Dunn |34.8 |

|Racine |0.70 |Fond du Lac |10.2 |Marathon |33.4 |

|Door |0.70 |Green |9.9 |Portage |29.8 |

|Sauk |0.68 |Eau Claire |9.4 |Pierce |29.5 |

TABLE A-2b County DCR Measure Rankings (cont.) a

|County |DCRs |County |DCRs |County |DCRs |

| |Per Mile2 of County | |Per Thousand Human | |Per Thousand Deer |

| |Land Area | |Population | |Population |

|Chippewa |0.64 |Manitowoc |9.0 |Oneida |26.5 |

|Milwaukee |0.63 |Burnett |8.9 |Clark |25.7 |

|Pepin |0.61 |Jefferson |8.0 |Monroe |25.1 |

|Green |0.57 |Grant |7.6 |Richland |21.8 |

|Monroe |0.55 |Bayfield |6.9 |Lafayette |21.5 |

|Buffalo |0.54 |Pierce |6.8 |Taylor |21.4 |

|Iowa |0.53 |Winnebago |6.1 |Chippewa |20.9 |

|Juneau |0.52 |Washington |6.0 |Jackson |20.6 |

|Richland |0.51 |Ozaukee |5.7 |Lincoln |20.0 |

|Vernon |0.48 |La Crosse |5.6 |Pepin |19.5 |

|Lincoln |0.46 |Walworth |5.5 |Juneau |17.3 |

|Taylor |0.45 |Outagamie |4.8 |Iowa |16.8 |

|Pierce |0.43 |Waukesha |4.8 |Grant |16.5 |

|Douglas |0.39 |Sheboygan |4.5 |Vernon |16.4 |

|Grant |0.33 |Dane |4.2 |Buffalo |15.2 |

|Crawford |0.32 |Brown |4.2 |Burnett |11.5 |

|Lafayette |0.28 |Rock |3.9 |Douglas |10.4 |

|Forest |0.20 |Iron |3.6 |Crawford |9.6 |

|Burnett |0.17 |Ashland |3.0 |Forest |5.2 |

|Bayfield |0.07 |Kenosha |1.4 |Iron |3.5 |

|Ashland |0.05 |Racine |1.2 |Bayfield |3.5 |

|Iron |0.03 |Milwaukee |0.2 |Ashland |2.8 |

a These lists do not include Menominee County and the counties with DCR to DVC ratio larger than 4.90. The DCR and deer population

data are from July 1999 to June 2000 and the other data are from 2000 (29, 30, 31).

TABLE A-3a County DVC Measure Rankings a

|County |Total |County |DVCs |County |DVCs |

| |DVCs | |per | |per Mile of Roadway |

| | | |HMVMT b | | |

|Dane |1,177 |Adams |178.4 |Waupaca |0.45 |

|Marathon |891 |Shawano |178.3 |Shawano |0.44 |

|Shawano |799 |Taylor |154.3 |Green Lake |0.43 |

|Waupaca |723 |Green Lake |145.8 |Columbia |0.42 |

|Columbia |722 |Waupaca |129.4 |Sheboygan |0.39 |

|Portage |685 |Forest |119.2 |Portage |0.37 |

|Waukesha |616 |Florence |118.2 |Winnebago |0.34 |

|Sheboygan |593 |Marquette |99.2 |Sauk |0.31 |

|Sauk |549 |Richland |87.4 |Dane |0.30 |

|Winnebago |499 |Portage |87.2 |Marquette |0.30 |

|Fond du Lac |489 |Clark |86.0 |Adams |0.29 |

|Dodge |484 |Door |79.1 |Fond du Lac |0.28 |

|Outagamie |472 |Pepin |78.2 |Washington |0.28 |

|Saint Croix |465 |Green |78.1 |Ozaukee |0.27 |

|Brown |442 |Vernon |73.4 |Marathon |0.27 |

|Rock |437 |Sauk |71.6 |Saint Croix |0.26 |

|Adams |412 |Columbia |68.6 |La Crosse |0.26 |

|Washington |399 |Dunn |66.8 |Eau Claire |0.25 |

|Dunn |392 |Lafayette |63.5 |Jefferson |0.25 |

|Eau Claire |390 |Pierce |63.4 |Outagamie |0.25 |

|Manitowoc |382 |Marathon |62.3 |Dodge |0.24 |

|Monroe |350 |Lincoln |59.7 |Manitowoc |0.23 |

|Jefferson |346 |Sheboygan |58.9 |Calumet |0.23 |

|Clark |343 |Waushara |58.9 |Florence |0.23 |

|Jackson |306 |Jackson |56.5 |Dunn |0.23 |

|Green Lake |301 |Calumet |55.8 |Door |0.22 |

|Taylor |296 |Oneida |55.3 |Rock |0.22 |

|La Crosse |293 |Grant |54.2 |Waukesha |0.22 |

|Grant |281 |Dodge |54.0 |Monroe |0.22 |

|Door |277 |Saint Croix |48.5 |Jackson |0.21 |

|Lincoln |263 |Monroe |47.6 |Taylor |0.20 |

|Oneida |257 |Fond du Lac |47.2 |Lincoln |0.20 |

|Marquette |254 |Manitowoc |45.9 |Brown |0.20 |

|Walworth |250 |Eau Claire |40.2 |Green |0.20 |

|Green |243 |Jefferson |36.8 |Walworth |0.17 |

|Ozaukee |243 |Buffalo |35.5 |Waushara |0.16 |

|Waushara |218 |Iowa |35.2 |Clark |0.16 |

|Juneau |215 |Juneau |33.8 |Oneida |0.15 |

TABLE A-3a County DVC Measure Rankings (cont.) a

|County |Total |County |DVCs |County |DVCs |

| |DVCs | |per | |per Mile of Roadway |

| | | |HMVMT b | | |

|Vernon |215 |Chippewa |32.0 |Richland |0.15 |

|Chippewa |214 |Washington |31.3 |Juneau |0.14 |

|Calumet |192 |Outagamie |31.1 |Pierce |0.14 |

|Pierce |180 |Winnebago |30.7 |Forest |0.14 |

|Richland |168 |La Crosse |30.1 |Kenosha |0.14 |

|Douglas |159 |Douglas |29.5 |Grant |0.13 |

|Forest |145 |Rock |27.0 |Vernon |0.13 |

|Kenosha |141 |Dane |25.7 |Pepin |0.12 |

|Milwaukee |138 |Burnett |25.7 |Chippewa |0.10 |

|Iowa |121 |Ozaukee |24.5 |Lafayette |0.10 |

|Florence |120 |Bayfield |24.4 |Racine |0.10 |

|Racine |120 |Walworth |22.9 |Iowa |0.09 |

|Lafayette |115 |Crawford |21.1 |Douglas |0.08 |

|Bayfield |83 |Brown |20.0 |Buffalo |0.06 |

|Buffalo |65 |Ashland |19.0 |Milwaukee |0.05 |

|Pepin |55 |Waukesha |15.5 |Crawford |0.05 |

|Crawford |49 |Iron |10.2 |Bayfield |0.04 |

|Ashland |44 |Kenosha |9.9 |Ashland |0.04 |

|Burnett |41 |Racine |7.4 |Burnett |0.03 |

|Iron |19 |Milwaukee |1.8 |Iron |0.02 |

a These lists do not include Menominee County and the counties with DCR to DVC ratio larger than 4.90. The data are from 2000 (4, 29).

b HMVMT = Hundred Million Vehicle Miles of Travel

TABLE A-3b County DVC Measure Rankings a

|County |DVCs |County |DVCs |County |DVCs |

| |Per Mile2 of County | |Per Thousand Human | |Per Thousand Deer |

| |Land Area | |Population | |Population |

|Sheboygan |1.15 |Florence |23.6 |Waukesha |127.7 |

|Winnebago |1.14 |Adams |22.1 |Milwaukee |113.5 |

|Waukesha |1.11 |Shawano |19.6 |Ozaukee |103.0 |

|Ozaukee |1.05 |Marquette |16.0 |Brown |89.3 |

|Dane |0.98 |Jackson |16.0 |Sheboygan |83.4 |

|Waupaca |0.96 |Green Lake |15.8 |Kenosha |77.1 |

|Columbia |0.93 |Taylor |15.0 |Washington |75.1 |

|Washington |0.93 |Forest |14.5 |Dane |74.8 |

|Shawano |0.89 |Waupaca |14.0 |Rock |74.6 |

|Green Lake |0.85 |Columbia |13.8 |Racine |68.2 |

|Portage |0.85 |Clark |10.2 |Winnebago |65.5 |

|Brown |0.84 |Portage |10.2 |Walworth |64.1 |

|Outagamie |0.74 |Sauk |9.9 |Fond du Lac |59.0 |

|Fond du Lac |0.68 |Door |9.9 |Dodge |46.5 |

|Sauk |0.66 |Dunn |9.8 |Saint Croix |45.0 |

|La Crosse |0.65 |Waushara |9.4 |Calumet |43.6 |

|Manitowoc |0.65 |Richland |9.4 |Outagamie |43.4 |

|Saint Croix |0.64 |Lincoln |8.9 |Jefferson |43.3 |

|Adams |0.64 |Juneau |8.8 |Green |37.8 |

|Jefferson |0.62 |Monroe |8.6 |Manitowoc |35.9 |

|Eau Claire |0.61 |Vernon |7.7 |Columbia |34.5 |

|Rock |0.61 |Pepin |7.6 |Door |26.7 |

|Calumet |0.60 |Saint Croix |7.4 |La Crosse |26.2 |

|Marathon |0.58 |Green |7.2 |Portage |26.0 |

|Door |0.57 |Lafayette |7.1 |Adams |23.9 |

|Milwaukee |0.57 |Marathon |7.1 |Marathon |23.5 |

|Marquette |0.56 |Oneida |7.0 |Waupaca |23.5 |

|Dodge |0.55 |Grant |5.7 |Eau Claire |23.3 |

|Kenosha |0.52 |Dodge |5.6 |Green Lake |23.0 |

|Dunn |0.46 |Bayfield |5.5 |Lafayette |22.7 |

|Walworth |0.45 |Iowa |5.3 |Dunn |22.3 |

|Green |0.42 |Sheboygan |5.3 |Pierce |21.6 |

|Monroe |0.39 |Fond du Lac |5.0 |Sauk |19.8 |

|Racine |0.36 |Pierce |4.9 |Monroe |17.0 |

|Waushara |0.35 |Calumet |4.7 |Marquette |15.5 |

|Pierce |0.31 |Buffalo |4.7 |Florence |14.8 |

TABLE A-3b County DVC Measure Rankings (cont.) a

|County |DVCs |County |DVCs |County |DVCs |

| |Per Mile2 of County | |Per Thousand Human | |Per Thousand Deer |

| |Land Area | |Population | |Population |

|Jackson |0.31 |Jefferson |4.7 |Chippewa |14.2 |

|Taylor |0.30 |Manitowoc |4.6 |Shawano |14.1 |

|Lincoln |0.30 |Eau Claire |4.2 |Grant |11.8 |

|Richland |0.29 |Chippewa |3.9 |Clark |11.7 |

|Clark |0.28 |Douglas |3.7 |Vernon |11.4 |

|Juneau |0.28 |Washington |3.4 |Iowa |11.4 |

|Vernon |0.27 |Winnebago |3.2 |Waushara |10.5 |

|Florence |0.25 |Ozaukee |3.0 |Taylor |10.4 |

|Grant |0.24 |Outagamie |2.9 |Richland |9.9 |

|Pepin |0.24 |Rock |2.9 |Lincoln |9.7 |

|Oneida |0.23 |Crawford |2.8 |Juneau |9.0 |

|Chippewa |0.21 |Iron |2.8 |Jackson |8.7 |

|Lafayette |0.18 |Dane |2.8 |Forest |6.8 |

|Iowa |0.16 |La Crosse |2.7 |Pepin |6.4 |

|Forest |0.14 |Walworth |2.7 |Buffalo |4.7 |

|Douglas |0.12 |Burnett |2.6 |Crawford |4.5 |

|Buffalo |0.09 |Ashland |2.6 |Oneida |4.1 |

|Crawford |0.09 |Brown |1.9 |Douglas |2.9 |

|Bayfield |0.06 |Waukesha |1.7 |Bayfield |1.6 |

|Burnett |0.05 |Kenosha |0.9 |Burnett |1.5 |

|Ashland |0.04 |Racine |0.6 |Ashland |1.4 |

|Iron |0.03 |Milwaukee |0.1 |Iron |1.0 |

a These lists do not include Menominee County and the counties with DCR to DVC ratio larger than 4.90. The data are from 2000 (4, 29).

APPENDIX B

CRASH ANALYSIS SITE

LOCATIONS AND DVC PATTERNS

NOTE: CTH = county highway; STH = state highway; Dots represent sign locations; “X” represents the end of CAS.

FIGURE B-1a Crash Analysis Site Location—Adam-1 (32)

NOTE: The crash patterns are from 1996 to 1998; The X-axis was divided into 1/4-mile sub-segments.

FIGURE B-1b DVC Rate (left) and Frequency (right) Patterns at CAS Adam-1

NOTE: CTH = county highway; STH = state highway; Dots represent sign locations; “X” represents the end of CAS.

FIGURE B-2a Crash Analysis Site Location—Adam-2 (32)

NOTE: The crash patterns are from 1996 to 1998; The X-axis was divided into 1/4-mile sub-segments.

FIGURE B-2b DVC Rate (left) and Frequency (right) Patterns at CAS Adam-2

NOTE: CTH = county highway; STH = state highway; Dots represent sign locations; “X” represents the end of CAS.

FIGURE B-3a Crash Analysis Site Location—Adam-3 (32)

NOTE: The crash patterns are from 1996 to 1998; The X-axis was divided into 1/4-mile sub-segments.

FIGURE B-3b DVC Rate (left) and Frequency (right) Patterns at CAS Adam-3

NOTE: CTH = county highway; STH = state highway; Dots represent sign locations; “X” represents the end of CAS.

FIGURE B-4a Crash Analysis Site Location—Dane-1 (32)

NOTE: The crash patterns are from 1996 to 1998; The X-axis was divided into 1/4-mile sub-segments.

FIGURE B-4b DVC Rate (left) and Frequency (right) Patterns at CAS Dane-1

NOTE: CTH = county highway; STH = state highway; Dots represent sign locations; “X” represents the end of CAS.

FIGURE B-5a Crash Analysis Site Location—Dane-2 (32)

NOTE: The crash patterns are from 1996 to 1998; The X-axis was divided into 1/4-mile sub-segments.

FIGURE B-5b DVC Rate (left) and Frequency (right) Patterns at CAS Dane-2

NOTE: CTH = county highway; STH = state highway; Dots represent sign locations; “X” represents the end of CAS.

FIGURE B-6a Crash Analysis Site Location—Dane-3 (32)

NOTE: The crash patterns are from 1996 to 1998; The X-axis was divided into 1/4-mile sub-segments.

FIGURE B-6b DVC Rate (left) and Frequency (right) Patterns at CAS Dane-3

NOTE: CTH = county highway; STH = state highway; Dots represent sign locations; “X” represents the end of CAS.

FIGURE B-7a Crash Analysis Site Location—Dane-4 (32)

NOTE: The crash patterns are from 1996 to 1998; The X-axis was divided into 1/4-mile sub-segments.

FIGURE B-7b DVC Rate (left) and Frequency (right) Patterns at CAS Dane-4

NOTE: CTH = county highway; STH = state highway; Dots represent sign locations; “X” represents the end of CAS.

FIGURE B-8a Crash Analysis Site Location—Dane-5 (32)

NOTE: The crash patterns are from 1996 to 1998; The X-axis was divided into 1/4-mile sub-segments.

FIGURE B-8b DVC Rate (left) and Frequency (right) Patterns at CAS Dane-5

NOTE: CTH = county highway; STH = state highway; Dots represent sign locations; “X” represents the end of CAS.

FIGURE B-9a Crash Analysis Site Location—Dane-6 (32)

NOTE: The crash patterns are from 1996 to 1998; The X-axis was divided into 1/4-mile sub-segments.

FIGURE B-9b DVC Rate (left) and Frequency (right) Patterns at CAS Dane-6

NOTE: CTH = county highway; STH = state highway; Dots represent sign locations; “X” represents the end of CAS.

FIGURE B-10a Crash Analysis Site Location—Dane-7 (32)

NOTE: The crash patterns are from 1996 to 1998; The X-axis was divided into 1/4-mile sub-segments.

FIGURE B-10b DVC Rate (left) and Frequency (right) Patterns at CAS Dane-7

NOTE: CTH = county highway; STH = state highway; Dots represent sign locations; “X” represents the end of CAS.

FIGURE B-11a Crash Analysis Site Location—Dane-8 (32)

NOTE: The crash patterns are from 1996 to 1998; The X-axis was divided into 1/4-mile sub-segments.

FIGURE B-11b DVC Rate (left) and Frequency (right) Patterns at CAS Dane-8

NOTE: CTH = county highway; STH = state highway; Dots represent sign locations; “X” represents the end of CAS.

FIGURE B-12a Crash Analysis Site Location—Dane-9 (32)

NOTE: The crash patterns are from 1996 to 1998; The X-axis was divided into 1/4-mile sub-segments.

FIGURE B-12b DVC Rate (left) and Frequency (right) Patterns at CAS Dane-9

NOTE: CTH = county highway; STH = state highway; Dots represent sign locations; “X” represents the end of CAS.

FIGURE B-13a Crash Analysis Site Location—Sauk-1 (32)

NOTE: The crash patterns are from 1996 to 1998; The X-axis was divided into 1/4-mile sub-segments.

FIGURE B-13b DVC Rate (left) and Frequency (right) Patterns at CAS Sauk-1

NOTE: CTH = county highway; STH = state highway; Dots represent sign locations; “X” represents the end of CAS.

FIGURE B-14a Crash Analysis Site Location—Sauk-2 (32)

NOTE: The crash patterns are from 1996 to 1998; The X-axis was divided into 1/4-mile sub-segments.

FIGURE B-14b DVC Rate (left) and Frequency (right) Patterns at CAS Sauk-2

NOTE: CTH = county highway; STH = state highway; Dots represent sign locations; “X” represents the end of CAS.

FIGURE B-15a Crash Analysis Site Location—Sauk-3 (32)

NOTE: The crash patterns are from 1996 to 1998; The X-axis was divided into 1/4-mile sub-segments.

FIGURE B-15b DVC Rate (left) and Frequency (right) Patterns at CAS Sauk-3

NOTE: CTH = county highway; STH = state highway; Dots represent sign locations; “X” represents the end of CAS.

FIGURE B-16a Crash Analysis Site Location—Sauk-4 (32)

NOTE: The crash patterns are from 1996 to 1998; The X-axis was divided into 1/4-mile sub-segments.

FIGURE B-16b DVC Rate (left) and Frequency (right) Patterns at CAS Sauk-4

NOTE: CTH = county highway; STH = state highway; Dots represent sign locations; “X” represents the end of CAS.

FIGURE B-17a Crash Analysis Site Location—Sauk-5 (32)

NOTE: The crash patterns are from 1996 to 1998; The X-axis was divided into 1/4-mile sub-segments.

FIGURE B-17b DVC Rate (left) and Frequency (right) Patterns at CAS Sauk-5

NOTE: STH = state highway, IH = Interstate Highway; Dots represent sign locations; “X” represents the end of CAS.

FIGURE B-18a Crash Analysis Site Location—Sauk-6 (32)

NOTE: The crash patterns are from 1996 to 1998; The X-axis was divided into 1/4-mile sub-segments.

FIGURE B-18b DVC Rate (left) and Frequency (right) Patterns at CAS Sauk-6

NOTE: STH = state highway, IH = Interstate Highway; Dots represent sign locations; “X” represents the end of CAS.

FIGURE B-19a Crash Analysis Site Location—Sauk-7 (32)

NOTE: The crash patterns are from 1996 to 1998; The X-axis was divided into 1/4-mile sub-segments.

FIGURE B-19b DVC Rate (left) and Frequency (right) Patterns at CAS Sauk-7

NOTE: STH = state highway, IH = Interstate Highway; Dots represent sign locations; “X” represents the end of CAS.

FIGURE B-20a Crash Analysis Site Location—Shaw-1 (32)

NOTE: The crash patterns are from 1996 to 1998; The X-axis was divided into 1/4-mile sub-segments.

FIGURE B-20b DVC Rate (left) and Frequency (right) Patterns at CAS Shaw-1

NOTE: STH = state highway, IH = Interstate Highway; Dots represent sign locations; “X” represents the end of CAS.

FIGURE B-21a Crash Analysis Site Location—Shaw-2 (32)

NOTE: The crash patterns are from 1996 to 1998; The X-axis was divided into 1/4-mile sub-segments.

FIGURE B-21b DVC Rate (left) and Frequency (right) Patterns at CAS Shaw-2.

NOTE: STH = state highway, IH = Interstate Highway; Dots represent sign locations; “X” represents the end of CAS.

FIGURE B-22a Crash Analysis Site Location—Shaw-3 (32)

NOTE: The crash patterns are from 1996 to 1998; The X-axis was divided into 1/4-mile sub-segments.

FIGURE B-22b DVC Rate (left) and Frequency (right) Patterns at CAS Shaw-3

NOTE: STH = state highway, IH = Interstate Highway; Dots represent sign locations; “X” represents the end of CAS.

FIGURE B-23a Crash Analysis Site Location—Shaw-4 (32)

NOTE: The crash patterns are from 1996 to 1998; The X-axis was divided into 1/4-mile sub-segments.

FIGURE B-23b DVC Rate (left) and Frequency (right) Patterns at CAS Shaw-4

NOTE: STH = state highway, IH = Interstate Highway; Dots represent sign locations; “X” represents the end of CAS.

FIGURE B-24a Crash Analysis Site Location—Waup-1 (32)

NOTE: The crash patterns are from 1996 to 1998; The X-axis was divided into 1/4-mile sub-segments.

FIGURE B-24b DVC Rate (left) and Frequency (right) Patterns at CAS Waup-1

NOTE: STH = state highway, IH = Interstate Highway; Dots represent sign locations; “X” represents the end of CAS.

FIGURE B-25a Crash Analysis Site Location—Waup-2 (32)

NOTE: The crash patterns are from 1996 to 1998; The X-axis was divided into 1/4-mile sub-segments.

FIGURE B-25b DVC Rate (left) and Frequency (right) Patterns at CAS Waup-2

NOTE: STH = state highway, IH = Interstate Highway; Dots represent sign locations; “X” represents the end of CAS.

FIGURE B-26a Crash Analysis Site Location—Waup-3 (32)

NOTE: The crash patterns are from 1996 to 1998; The X-axis was divided into 1/4-mile sub-segments.

FIGURE B-26b DVC Rate (left) and Frequency (right) Patterns at CAS Waup-3

NOTE: STH = state highway, IH = Interstate Highway; Dots represent sign locations; “X” represents the end of CAS.

FIGURE B-27a Crash Analysis Site Location—Waup-4 (32).

NOTE: The crash patterns are from 1996 to 1998; The X-axis was divided into 1/4-mile sub-segments.

FIGURE B-27b DVC Rate (left) and Frequency (right) Patterns at CAS Waup-4.

NOTE: STH = state highway, IH = Interstate Highway; Dots represent sign locations; “X” represents the end of CAS.

FIGURE B-28a Crash Analysis Site Location—Waup-5 (32)

NOTE: The crash patterns are from 1996 to 1998; The X-axis was divided into 1/4-mile sub-segments.

FIGURE B-28b DVC Rate (left) and Frequency (right) Patterns at CAS Waup-5

NOTE: STH = state highway, IH = Interstate Highway; Dots represent sign locations; “X” represents the end of CAS.

FIGURE B-29a Crash Analysis Site Location—Waup-6 (32)

NOTE: The crash patterns are from 1996 to 1998; The X-axis was divided into 1/4-mile sub-segments.

FIGURE B-29b DVC Rate (left) and Frequency (right) Patterns at CAS Waup-6

NOTE: STH = state highway, IH = Interstate Highway; Dots represent sign locations; “X” represents the end of CAS.

FIGURE B-30a Crash Analysis Site Location—Waup-7 (32)

NOTE: The crash patterns are from 1996 to 1998; The X-axis was divided into 1/4-mile sub-segments.

FIGURE B-30b DVC Rate (left) and Frequency (right) Patterns at CAS Waup-7

REFERENCES

1. Gordon, D.F. Deer-Elk Investigations: Evaluation of Deer-Highway Crossing Safety Measures. Report W-038-R-23/Wk.Pl.04/Job 03, Game, Fish and Parks Department, Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Denver, Colorado, 1969, pp. 18

2. U.S. Department of Transportation. Traffic Safety Facts, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington D.C., 2000.

3. Conover, M.R. Monetary and Intangible Valuation of Deer in the United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 25, No. 25, 1997, pp. 298-305.

4. Wisconsin Department of Transportation. Wisconsin Traffic Crash Facts. Bureau of Transportation Safety, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Madison, Wisconsin, 2000.

5. Wisconsin Department of Transportation. Ratio of Deer Removals to Reported Deer Crashes in Fiscal Year 2000. Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Madison, Wisconsin, 2000.

6. Danielson, B., and M. A. Hubbard. Literature Review for Assessing the Status of Current Methods of Reducing Deer-Vehicle Collisions. The Task Force on Animal Vehicle Collisions, the Iowa Department of Transportation and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, 1998.

7. Pojar, T.M., D. F. Reed and T.C. Reseigh. Effectiveness of A Lighted, Animated Deer Crossing Sign. Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 39, No. 1, 1975, pp. 87-91.

8. U.S. Department of Transportation. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Millennium Edition. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington D.C, 2000.

9. Allen, R.E., and D.R. McCullough. Deer-Car Accidents in Southern Michigan. Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 40, No. 2, 1976, pp. 317-325.

10. Carbaugh, B., J.P. Vaughan, E.D. Bellis, and H.B. Graves. Distribution and Activity of White-Tailed Deer along an Interstate Highway. Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 39, No. 3, 1975, pp. 570-581.

11. Hubbard, Michael W., Brent J. Danielson, Richard A. Schmitz. Factors Influencing the Location of Deer-Vehicle Accidents in Iowa. Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 64, No. 3, 2000, pp. 707-713

12. Bashore, T. L., W. M. Tzilkowski and E. D. Bellis. Analysis of Deer-Vehicle Collision Sites in Pennsylvania. Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 49, No. 3, 1985, pp. 769-774.

13. Peek, F. W., and E. D. Bellis. Deer Movements and Behavior Along an Interstate Highway. Highway Research News, Vol. 36, 1969, pp. 36-42.

14. Montgomery, G.G. Nocturnal Movements and Activity Rhythms of White-tailed Deer. Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 27, No. 3, 1963, pp. 422-427.

15. Bruinderink, G.W.T.A., and E. Hazebroek. Ungulate Traffic Collisions in Europe. Conservation Biology, Vol. 10, No. 4, 1996, pp. 1059-1067.

16. Reed, D. F., and T. N. Woodard. Effectiveness of Highway Lighting in Reducing Deer-Vehicle Accidents. Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 45, No. 3, 1981, pp.721-726.

17. Gunther, K. A., M. J. Biel, and H. L. Robison. Factors Influencing the Frequency of Road Killed Wildlife in Yellowstone National Park. Proceedings of the International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation, Report No. FL-ER-69S58, Fort Myers, Florida, 1998. pp. 32-42.

18. Iverson, A.L. and L.R. Iverson. Spatial and Temporal Trends of Deer Harvest and Deer-Vehicle Accidents in Ohio. The Ohio Journal of Science, Vol. 99, No. 4, 1999, pp.84-94.

19. Puglisi, M.J., J.S. Lindzey, and E.D. Bellis. Factors Associated with Highway Mortality of White-Tailed Deer. Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 38, No. 4, 1974. pp. 799-807.

20. Finder, R.A. Relationships Between Landscape Patterns and White-Tailed Deer/Vehicle Accidents. A Master’s Thesis. Department of Zoology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois, 1997.

21. Finder, R.A., J.L. Roseberry, and A. Woolf. Site and Landscape Conditions at White-Tailed Deer-Vehicle Collision Locations in Illinois. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 44, 1999, pp.77-85.

22. Washtenaw County Road Commission. Placement of Deer Crossing Signs. . Accessed on Nov. 23, 2002.

23. Center for Transportation Research and Education. Deer Crossing Signs. Iowa Traffic Control Devices and Pavement Markings: A Manual for Cities and Counties. Center for Transportation Research and Education. Ames, Iowa, 2001.

24. Minnesota Department of Transportation. Traffic Engineering Manual. Office of Traffic, Security and Operations, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Saint Paul, Minnesota, 2002.

25. Pojar, T.M., D. F. Reed and T.C. Reseigh. Lighted Deer Crossing Signs And Vehicular Speed. Report HS-011 935, Division of Games, Fish, and Parks, Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Denver, Colorado, 1971, pp.12.

26. Gordon, K.M, S.H. Anderson, B. Gribble, and M. Johnson. Evaluation of the FLASH (Flashing Light Animal Sensing Host) System in Nugget Canyon, Wyoming. Report FHWA-WY-01/03F, Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Wyoming Department of Transportation, Cheyenne, WY, 2001.

27. McShane, William R., Roger P. Roess and Elena S. Prassas. Traffic Engineering, Second Edition. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 1998.

28. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Manual of Transportation Engineering Studies. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 1994.

29. Wisconsin Department of Transportation. County Maps. Department of Transportation, Madison, Wisconsin. 2000.

30. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Deer-Vehicle Accident Data. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin, 2000.

31. Oakasa, Tanveer. Deer-Vehicle Crash Models for Wisconsin Counties. University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, 2003.

32. Delorme ©. Street Atlas 2003 USA (CD-ROM). Copyright © 2003 DeLorme, 2003.

-----------------------

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

DC Sign Pair

2 miles

DC Sign Pair

2 miles

d" 2 miles

CAS

DC Sign Pair

2 miles

2 miles

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]≤ 2 miles

CAS

DC Sign Pair

2 miles

2 miles

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

CAS

-----------------------

56

38

39

40

31

33

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download