A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Utility Poles (2004)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

I-1 SECTION I Summary Introduction The AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan identified 22 goals to be pursued to achieve a significant reduction in highway crash fatalities. One of the hallmarks of the plan is to approach safety problems in a comprehensive manner. The range of strategies available in the guides will ultimately cover various aspects of the road user, the highway, the vehicle, the environment, and the management system. The guides strongly encourage the user to develop a program to tackle a particular emphasis area from each of these perspectives in a coordinated manner. AASHTO’s overall goal is to move away from independent activities of engineers, law enforcement, educators, judges, and other highway safety specialists and to move to co- ordinated efforts. The implementation process outlined in the series of guides promotes the formation of working groups and alliances that represent all of the elements of the safety system. In so doing, the guides can draw upon their combined expertise to reach the bottom-line goal of targeted reduction of crashes and fatalities associated with a particular emphasis area. This emphasis area is specifically identified in Goal 16, Minimizing the Consequences of Leaving the Road. Utility pole crashes are a subset of run-off-road (ROR) crashes. Emphasis Area 16.1 addresses the general subject of ROR crashes and covers strategies aimed at reducing the consequences of ROR crashes by (1) keeping vehicles from leaving the roadway and (2) reducing the severity of impacts after leaving the roadway. Ideally, keeping the vehicle on the roadway and in its appropriate lane is preferred. The reader should refer to the other strategy documents for strategies aimed at keeping the vehicle on the roadway. This guide focuses on measures directed at reducing the harm in utility pole crashes after encroachment on the roadside has occurred—strategies such as removing or relocating specific utility poles, placing utilities underground, and shielding motorists from utility poles. Utility pole crashes are fixed-object crashes that involve vehicles leaving the travel lane, encroaching on the roadside, and striking a utility pole. Utility poles can also contribute to the severity of other crash types. Many crashes are not classified as ROR or fixed-object crashes where one or more vehicles strike a utility pole. Crashes are often classified by “first harmful event.” In some cases, striking the utility pole is a secondary event that may be as severe as, or more severe than, the first harmful event. Crashes involving utility poles as secondary events easily go unnoticed when examining the total magnitude of the utility pole crash problem.

Type of Problem Utility poles represent one of the more substantial objects that are intentionally placed on roadsides. “The U.S. has over 88 million utility poles on highway rights-of-way.”1 They are substantial both in sheer number and in structural strength. The only object type more frequently struck in fatal fixed-object crashes is trees.2 Because of the structural strength and small vehicle contact area of utility poles, these crashes tend to be severe. In 2002, there were 1,008 fatal crashes3 associated with utility poles reported in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS; see http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/). Although the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) General Estimates System (GES) does not report utility pole crashes separately, the data for 1999 show that fatal crashes were only about 1 percent of all pole crashes. However, about 40 percent of pole crashes involve some type of injury. The data also show that about 25 percent of pole crashes occur in adverse weather conditions, and only about half occur in full daylight, while another 25 percent occur under lighted conditions at night. SECTION I—SUMMARY I-2 Crashes with all poles, including utility poles Source: GES 1999 None 60% Fatal 1% Possible Injury 15% Non- Incapacitating 17% Incapacitating 7% EXHIBIT I-1 Distribution of Maximum Severity for Pole Crashes Objectives of the Emphasis Area To reduce the severity and number of fatality utility pole crashes, the objectives should be to • Treat specific utility poles in high-crash and high-risk spot locations, • Prevent placing utility poles in high-risk locations, and • Treat several utility poles along a corridor to minimize the likelihood of crashing into a utility pole if a vehicle runs off the road. A comprehensive safety program to address utility pole crashes would be missing very important opportunities if non-engineering methods were not also considered. While not 1 “Safer Roadsides Through Better Utility Pole Placement, Protection, Construction,” Texas Transportation Researcher, Volume 35, Number 1 (1999). 2American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Roadside Design Guide. AASHTO, Washington, D.C. January 1996. 3This number was obtained assuming that the collision with the utility pole was the first harmful event in the fatal crash.

SECTION I—SUMMARY specifically targeting pole crashes, some of these methods, such as increased speed enforce- ment and increased use of seatbelts, can help reduce the severity and risk of utility pole crashes. These systemic strategies have a much broader reach than utility pole or fixed-object crashes. However, the authors encourage the reader to refer to the guides that specifically address these strategies and to work with the appropriate agencies to apply the strategies. Explanation of the Objectives A multifaceted approach is ideal and includes combining the efforts of highway agency and utility personnel, treating existing isolated problem locations and high-risk sites, preventing the development of new high-risk sites, and systematically reviewing and treating high-risk corridors. The time and cost to relocate or remove utility poles sometimes causes the strategy to receive less attention than is appropriate to effectively reduce the severity and impact of utility pole crashes. The lack of attention received by this strategy is a reason to develop a focused and well-documented program to maximize the safety improvements’ effectiveness. The first objective represents an approach to identify and treat locations with a history of utility pole crashes. While many agencies have not kept the necessary data to systematically identify high-risk locations in a proactive approach, other techniques such as safety audits can be used to flag high-risk locations for investigation and possible treatment. Strategies for this objective focus on a relatively small number of poles in high-risk locations that may need a rapid response. A comprehensive safety program should always have a prevention component. Utility pole crashes are not an exception. The design and construction phases of roadway and utility projects are the best opportunities to practice “preventative medicine” by not placing poles in vulnerable locations. The strategy for meeting this objective is generally a long-term, systemic approach that requires steady and consistent application. The opportunities for application range from initial design of new facilities, 3R (resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation) projects, and utility rehabilitation, to even smaller projects where turn lanes are built with private funding, such as by developers. One of the major hurdles of safety programs targeting utility poles is the sheer number of poles on the roadside. It took decades to “plant” all the poles on the roadside. Utility poles were along roadsides when horses were drawing carriages. Therefore, it is unrealistic and unnecessary to expect to treat all the poles at the same time. A program is needed with both short-term and long-term components. These components should target and treat both the high-risk poles (such treatment tends to be done in the short term) and systematically treat poles along corridors on a continuing basis. This two-pronged approach helps avoid overwhelming agencies, utility companies, or other potential stakeholders. This approach recognizes that it is not financially possible to fix all the potentially hazardous poles immediately. Nevertheless, organized and targeted strategies to treat roadsides over time can significantly reduce the likelihood of a vehicle striking a utility pole or of that event causing injuries. Often, it is not feasible to remove, relocate, or place underground the utilities carried by potentially hazardous roadside poles. However, it may be possible to lessen the severity of injuries involved in crashes where a vehicle does strike such a pole. When other objectives I-3

are impractical, this approach includes strategies that redirect errant vehicles, lessen the severity of impacts, or alter the operating conditions to create less severe impact conditions. Exhibit I-2 lists the objectives and several related strategies for reducing the consequences and frequency of utility pole crashes. This exhibit does not represent a listing of all possible strategies to reduce the frequency and severity of utility pole crashes. For example, many strategies that focus on keeping vehicles on the roadway are not listed, but they would be very effective in reducing utility pole crashes. The reader may refer to the guides that specifically address the ROR crash issue for details on these strategies. SECTION I—SUMMARY I-4 EXHIBIT I-2 Emphasis Area Objectives and Strategies Objectives Strategies 16.2 A Treat specific utility poles in high-crash and high-risk spot locations. 16.2 B Prevent placing utility poles in high-risk locations. 16.2 C Treat several utility poles along a corridor to minimize the likelihood of crashing into a utility pole if a vehicle runs off the road. Target of the Objectives The first objective addresses the locations that have a collision history or are recognized as high-risk locations. The application of these strategies is generally limited to a single pole or a few poles. For example, one pole on the outside of a horizontal curve can be moved to a less exposed location on the inside of the same curve. The target of the second objective is placing new utility poles along the roadway or relocating poles for 3R projects or other roadway projects, including widening. In addition, the second objective targets poles that will be replaced when utility companies periodically reconstruct their facilities. The third objective targets utility poles along longer sections of roadway where crashes are spread out along the corridor and not clustered around a small number of poles. It is important to mention that cooperation is a joint responsibility between highway agencies and utility companies and is an essential ingredient to promoting utility safety. 16.2 A1 Remove poles in hazardous locations. 16.2 A2 Relocate poles in hazardous locations further from the roadway or to a less vulnerable location. 16.2 A3 Use breakaway poles. 16.2 A4 Shield drivers from poles in hazardous locations. 16.2 A5 Improve the drivers’ ability to see poles in hazardous locations. 16.2 A6 Apply traffic calming measures to reduce speeds on high-risk sections. 16.2 B1 Develop, revise, and implement policies to prevent placing or replacing poles within the recovery area. 16.2 C1 Place utilities underground. 16.2 C2 Relocate poles along the corridor farther from the roadway and/or to less vulnerable locations. 16.2 C3 Decrease the number of poles along the corridor.