2001-99-Resolution No. 2001-007 Recorded 3/8/2001VOL: CJ2001 PAGE: 99
RECORDED DOCUMENT
STATE OF OREGON
COUNTY OF DESCHUTES
*02001-99 * Vol -Page Printed: 03/13/2001 11:25:43
DO NOT REMOVE THIS CERTIFICATE
(This certificate constitutes a part of the original instrument in accordance with
ORS 205.180(2). Removal of this certificate may invalidate this certificate and affect
the admissibility of the original instrument into evidence in any legal proceeding.)
I hereby certify that the attached instrument was received
and duly recorded in Deschutes County records:
DATE AND TIME:
DOCUMENT TYPE:
Mar. 8, 2001; 3:46 p.m.
Resolution (CJ)
NUMBER OF PAGES: 14
MARY SUE PENHOLLOW
DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK
KE vN Eo
W 1: 2001
MICROFtL E
MAR 2 001
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES,
A Resolution Adopting the
Roadside Safety Management Plan
and Providing for Annual Review.
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-007
L COUNSEL
C U ,
WHEREAS, Deschutes County maintains approximately 830 miles of County roads; and
WHEREAS, given limited County fiscal resources, and the availability of manpower and
equipment, the County intends to remove roadside features that could possibility be hazardous to the
traveling public on County roads to provide an adequate clear zone free of hazards; and
WHEREAS, the Road Department Director has developed a Roadside Safety Management
Plan which sets forth the County's policies and procedures to deal with roadside hazards on roads
which are maintained by the County; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES
COUNTY, OREGON, as follows:
Section 1. The Roadside Safety Management Plan of Deschutes County, marked Exhibit "A",
attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, is hereby adopted as the Roadside Safety
Management Plan of Deschutes County, Oregon.
Section 2. That the Road Department Director is directed to implement the Roadside Safety
Management Plan as set forth in Section 1 of this Resolution.
Section 3. The Roadside Safety Management Plan shall be annually reviewed. Proposed
Annual updates shall be proposed along with sufficient documentation to show necessary appropriation
of funds to implement the plan during the next fiscal year.
DATED this e ---day of , 2001.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMKIISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, /OREGON
TOXISR.
, CHAI ?=
ATTEST:
KE, COMMISSIONER
Recording Secretary AeOl` = w
MICHAEL M. DALY, CO MISSIONER "�;
SES
MEMORANDUM
TO:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM:
GEORGE KOLB, ENGINEERING MANAGER 4
SUBJECT:
ADOPTION OF ROADSIDE SAFETY MANAGEMENT PLAN
DATE:
2/20/2001
CC:
RICK ISHAM, LEGAL COUNSEL
Road Department
61150 S.E. 27th St., Bend, OR 97702
(541) 388-6581 • FAX (541) 388-2719
Before the Board for consideration of signature is Resolution No. 2001-007, adopting the
Deschutes County Roadside Safety Management Plan.
Discussion:
The purpose of the "Roadside Safety Management Plan" is to provide the Road Department with
goals, objectives and operating procedures for mitigation of roadside hazards on County Roads. The
goal of the Road Department, within available budget, manpower and equipment resources, is to
create a roadside environment free of fined objects along with stable, flattened slopes allowing a
vehicle to leave the roadway and return in a safe manner.
Recommendation:
The Road Department recommends signature of Resolution No. 2001-007 adopting the Roadside
Safety Management Plan.
Quality Services Performed with Pride
EXHIBIT "A"
DESCHUTES COUNTY
ROAD DEPARTMENT
ROADSIDE SAFETY
MANAGEMENT PLAN
FEBRUARY 2001
DESCHUTES COUNTY
ROADSIDE SAFETY MANAGEMENT PLAN
1. GENERAL INFORMATION
1.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this Deschutes County "Roadside Safety Management Plan" (RSMP)
is to provide the Road Department with Board of County Commissioners' adopted
goals and policies for mitigation of roadside hazards on County roads. It is not the
purpose of this plan to assure the safe operation of motor vehicles upon County roads.
1.2 GOALS
The RSMP has the following goals:
➢ Within available resources, remove or protect roadside features that could possibly
be hazardous to the traveling public.
➢ Identification and evaluation of fixed objects that may be hazardous.
➢ Allocate available resources.
➢ Prioritize removal of hazards.
➢ Develop a system for recording and updating a list of fixed objects.
➢ Provide for a review of the plan in conjunction with the budget.
RSMP - page 1
DESCHUTES COUNTY
ROADSIDE SAFETY MANAGEMENT PLAN
1.3 DEFINITIONS
AASHTO - American Association for State Highway and Transportation
Officials.
Accident Types - A classification of crashes (accidents) grouped according to
relative degree of injury or property damage.
A.D.T. - Average Daily volume of Traffic.
Arterial Road - A restricted access road of substantial continuity which is
primarily a traffic artery, and so designated by the County.
Clear Zone - The roadside total border area, starting at the edge of the
traveled way, available for use by errant vehicles.
Collector Road - A restricted access road supplementary to the arterial road
system, used or intended to be used primarily for the movement
of traffic between arterial and local roads, and so designated by
the County.
Encroachment - An inadvertent departure by a motorist from the traveled way.
Local Road - A road which provides access to property abutting a public
right-of-way. A local road is not intended to carry through -
traffic, although moving through -traffic is a secondary function
of a local road.
Roadside - The area between the traveled way and the right-of-way limits.
Traveled Way - The portion of the roadway for movement of vehicles, exclusive
of shoulders.
RSMP - page 2
DESCHUTES COUNTY
ROADSIDE SAFETY MANAGEMENT PLAN
1.3 WHY HAVE A ROADSIDE SAFETY MANAGEMENT PLAN.
The following figure indicates that roadside environment comes into play in a very
significant percentage of fatal and serious -injury crashes. The following nationwide
crash data is from Federal Highway Administration.
Fatal crashes by object type.
FIXED OBJECT
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992 1
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Tree / Shrub
3,329
3,296
3,252
3,236
3,053
2,721
2,880 1
2,827
2,904 1
2,935
Utility ole
1,476
1,418
1,277
1,329
1,129
1,028
1,056
1,017
1,013
1,042
Culvert / Ditch
1,473
1,349
1,501
1,401
1,363
1,271
1,510
1,336
1,300
1,387
Guardrail
1,385
1,288
1,249
1,204
1,139
1,001
1,060
998
1,048
1,132
Embankment
1,360
1,332
1,334
1,187
1,139
1,137
1,243
1,228
1,187
1,226
Curb / Wall
891
860
843
774
752
766
832
841
821
744
Other fixed object
682
696
731
634
619 1
510
490
497
521
485
Si / light su ort
576
594
578
528
488
433
433 1
563
497 1
497
Bridge / oveass
553
519
582
545
545
389
421
396
380
357
Other pOle
501
449
450
411
388
320
333
371
339
280
Fence
482
448
505
500
455
417
413
431
405
430
Concrete barrier
201 1
249 1
236 1
217
214
209
231
231
250
262
Building
106
98
97
111
89
73
73
61
86
76
impact attenuator
15
20
28
16 1
20 1
24
31
25
16
19
TOTALS
13,030 1
12,616
12,663 1
12,093 1
11,392 1
10,299 1
10,989 1
17822 1
10,771
10,882
Reference: AASHTO DESIGN GUIDE Table 1.1 and Fatality Accident Reporting System
The Deschutes County Safe Communities reported that for the five year period
between 1994 and 1998 there were 408 single vehicle crashes on Deschutes County
maintained roads. The description used in the accident report and the number of each
type of crash were:
Animal 74
Fixed Object 208
Other object 4
Overturned 94
Other non -collision 28
Of the 208 fixed object collisions; 2.8% were fatal, 48.6% were injury, and 48.6%
were property damage only.
1.4 FORGIVING ROADWAY
Deschutes County is reducing the number and severity of run off the road crashes in
two different ways. The first is keeping the drivers on the road through improved
signing, pavement markings, delineation, improving the geometrics of roads, and use
of skid -resistant pavement surfaces.
The second is creating a roadside environment free of fixed objects along with stable,
flattened slopes which enhances the opportunity for reduction of crashes or the
accident severity when crashes do occur. The forgiving roadside allows for errant
vehicles to leave the paved roadway and return to the roadway without serious
consequences.
RSMP - page 3
DESCHUTES COUNTY
ROADSIDE SAFETY MANAGEMENT PLAN
Through decades of experience and research by AASHTO, the forgiving roadside has
been refined to the point where roadside design is an integral part of road design and
maintenance. For example, a summary of design options for reducing roadside
obstacles might be represented by the following order:
- Remove the obstacle.
- Redesign the obstacle so it can be safely traversed.
- Relocate the obstacle to a point it will be less likely to be struck.
- Reduce the impact severity by using an appropriate breakaway device.
- Shield the obstacle with a longitudinal barrier and/or a crash cushion.
- Delineate the obstacle if the above alternatives are not appropriate.
1.5 REFERENCES
A. Federal Requirements:
Part 152, TITLE 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations sets criteria for developing
a safety plan. Subsection (al) states "Each State shall conduct and systematically
maintain an engineering survey of all public roads to identify hazardous locations,
sections, and elements, including roadside obstacles and unmarked or poorly
marked roads, which may constitute a danger to motorists, bicyclists, and
pedestrians, assign priorities for the correction of such locations, sections, and
elements, and establish and implement a schedule for their improvement."
B. State Requirements:
Action 22 of The Oregon Transportation Safety Action Plan states: With
consideration to the scenic quality of the roadway, use vegetation management
techniques to accomplish the following:
- Reduce ice on the roadway.
- Increase visibility in deer crossing areas.
- Eliminate "tunnel like" corridors and provide variation along edges to keep
drivers alert.
- Remove clear zone hazards.
- Remove hazard trees.
- Improve visibility of signs and roadway markings.
- Improve sight distance at intersections.
C. AASHTO's "ROADSIDE DESIGN GUIDE"
In lieu of specific policies from the Federal and State Governments, the Deschutes
County Road Department has adopted the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) January, 1996 "ROADSIDE DESIGN
GUIDE" for guidance in developing a Deschutes County Roadside Safety
Management Plan.
RSMP - page 4
DESCHUTES COUNTY
ROADSIDE SAFETY MANAGEMENT PLAN
D. AASHTO's "Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 1994"
Chapter V "Local Roads and Streets" states "Safety is an important factor in all
roadway improvements. However, it may not be practical or possible to obtain
obstacle -free roadside. Every effort should be made to provide as much clear
roadside as is practical. This becomes more important as speeds increase. Flatter
slopes, guardrail, and warning signs help to achieve roadside safety.
RSMP - page 5
DESCHUTES COUNTY
ROADSIDE SAFETY MANAGEMENT PLAN
2. CLEAR ZONE
2.1 WIDTH OF CLEAR ZONE
Chapter V "LOCAL ROADS AND STREETS" of AASHTO's 1994 Policy on
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets recommends that the width of the clear
zone be 10 feet or more from the edge of traveled way.
Appendix A of the "Roadside Design Guide " uses mathematical methods of
determining the extent of encroachment vs. the probability of an encroachment
occurring. Figure A.1 or Tables A.1.1 through A.1.8 in the Guide give an average
extent of probability. The following graph is a compilation of the tables.
0.8
0.6
m
Q
0 0.4
a
0.2
0
0 2 4
..... .... ...... I ........ I
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
LATERAL OFFSET (feet)
40 MPH
------50 MPH
----60 MPH
Using the above AASHTO graph and assuming an average speed of 55 mph on
Deschutes County's rural road system, a 10 foot clear zone would reduce the
probability of a vehicle colliding with an object by 58%. If the clear zone were
increased to the right of way line, usually an 18 foot clear zone, the probability of a
collision would be reduced by 75%. The probability of a collision would only be
reduced by an additional 17% if the clear zone was increased eight feet.
Generally the cost of road construction and environmental impacts increases
considerably the farther away from the existing road the construction is. The depth of
side slopes often increases in proportion to the distance from the edge of pavement.
Also, there are likely to be more trees, man made features, and utilities in the area near
the edge of right-of-way. Often the cost of creating a clear zone 18 feet wide is more
than double the cost of a 10 foot wide clear zone, without considering the cost of
additional right-of-way that may be required for slopes.
RSMP - page 6
DESCHUTES COUNTY
ROADSIDE SAFETY MANAGEMENT PLAN
The amount of monetary resources available for roadside safety enhancements is very
limited and the objective of the Department is to maximize roadside safety on a system
wide basis. For the reasons given it is considered that a 10 foot wide clear zone would
be the most cost effective width and greatly increase the safety of the motorist. On
some specific roads the clear zone may need to be varied due to narrow right of way,
low speeds, excessive costs, environmental concerns and engineering judgement.
2.2 HORIZONTAL CURVES
The clear zone may be modified for horizontal curves. These modifications are
normally only considered where accident histories indicate a need or a specific site
investigation shows a definitive accident potential which could be significantly
lessened by increasing the clear zone width and such increases are cost-effective.
2.3 ROADSIDE TOPOGRAPHY
The following are excerpts from Chapter 3 "ROADSIDE TOPOGRAPHY AND
DRAINAGE FEATURES" of the Roadside Design Guide. The Roadside Design
Guide should be consulted before doing any work involving drainage features.
A. Embankments (Parallel Slopes) —
Embankments or fill slopes parallel to the flow may be defined as recoverable,
non-recoverable, or critical. Recoverable slopes are all embankment slopes 4:1 or
flatter. Motorists who encroach on recoverable slopes can generally stop their
vehicles or slow them enough to return to the roadway safely.
A non-recoverable slope is defined as one which is traversable, but from which the
motorists will be unable to stop or return to the roadway easily. Embankments
between 1:3 and 1:4 generally fall into this category. Fixed objects will normally
not be constructed along such slopes and a clear runout area at the base of the
embankment is desirable.
A critical slope is one on which a vehicle is likely to overturn. Slopes steeper than
1:3 generally fall into this category.
B. Embankments (Cross slopes) —
Common obstacles on roadsides are embankment slopes created by driveways or
intersecting streets. These are generally more critical to errant motorists than
foreslopes or backslopes because they are typically struck head on by run -off -the -
road vehicles. Cross slopes of 1:6 or flatter are suggested for high speed
roadways. Embankment cross slopes steeper than 1:6 may be considered for urban
areas or low speed facilities. The Roadside Design Guide shows suggested designs
for slopes based on speed.
RSMP - page 7
DESCHUTES COUNTY
ROADSIDE SAFETY MANAGEMENT PLAN
C. Embankments (Backslopes) —
When a road is in a cut section, the backslope may be traversable depending upon
its relative smoothness and the presence of fixed objects. If the slope between the
roadway and the base of the backslope is traversable (3:1 or flatter) and the
backslope is obstacle -free, it may not be a significant obstacle, regardless of its
distance from the roadway. On the other hand, a steep rough -sided rock cut should
normally begin outside the clear zone or be shielded.
2.4 GUIDELINES FOR HAZARD REMOVAL
Section 3.3.1 of the ROADSIDE DESIGN GUIDE states "The guidelines in this
chapter may be most applicable to new construction or major reconstruction. On
resurfacing, rehabilitation, or restoration (RRR) the primary emphasis is placed on the
roadway itself. The actual performance of an existing facility may be measurable
through an evaluation of accident records and on-site inspections as part of the design
effort or in response to complaints by citizens or officials. Consequently, it may not
be cost-effective or practical because of environmental impacts or limited right-of-way
to bring a RRR project into full compliance with all of the clear zone
recommendations provided in this guide. Because of the scope of such projects and
the limited funding available, emphasis should be placed on correcting or protecting
areas within the project that have identifiable safety problems related to clear zone
widths."
2.5 EXAMPLES OF CLEAR ZONE APPLICATION
The following example of clear zone application comes from the ROADSIDE
DESIGN GUIDE. This design requires less right-of-way and embankment material
than a continuos relatively flat slope.
Recovery Area
Runout
Non Recoverable Clear Runout
der Recoverable Sloe Sloe I Area
4:1 or Flatter Slope Steeper than :I or Flatter
(6:1 or Flatter Desirable) 4:1 Slope ISlopeDesirable
Reference: ROADSIDE DESIGN GUIDE, Figure 3.7
Appendix A contains additional examples applying clear zones to roads.
RSMP - page 8
DESCHUTES COUNTY
ROADSIDE SAFETY MANAGEMENT PLAN
3. ROADSIDE OBSTACLE INVENTORY
3.1 METHODOLOGY
The roads in Deschutes County vary in right-of-way width, lane width, speed of
vehicles, volume of traffic, and classification in the Deschutes County Transportation
Plan. Additionally, roads are not always centered in the right-of-way.
Since some of this information is unavailable or difficult to determine by the field
inspectors who are inventorying hazards, it is not possible to know how wide the
eventual clear zone will be. To have a consistent system of inventorying roadside
objects, a distance of 10 feet or, when known, the outside edge of right-of-way is used,
which ever is less. In urban areas or where fence lines indicate a narrow right of way,
the width to be inventoried can be reduced by the inspector.
3.2 COUNTY ROADS TO BE INVENTORIED
Arterial, collector, and local roads with an A.D.T. over 1,000 and an 85% speed
greater than 35 mph will be inventoried.
3.3 INCLUDED IN INVENTORY
Both natural and man-made fixed objects will be included in the field inventory of the
County roads. Examples of objects to be included are:
trees utilities irrigation ditches
posts fences mailboxes (non -breakaway)
rocks slopes guardrail
3.4 NOT INCLUDED IN THE INVENTORY
Generally traffic signs, guardrail, and mailboxes on breakaway supports will not be
included in this inventory.
3.5 OTHER INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN THE
INVENTORY
Road name and number, date, names of the inventorier, A.D.T., beginning and ending
mile post, side, offset distance, fixed object code, curve, grade, and speed.
RSMP - page 9
DESCHUTES COUNTY
ROADSIDE SAFETY MANAGEMENT PLAN
4. REMOVAL PLAN
4.1 PRIORITIZING OBSTACLES FOR REMOVAL
The method for prioritizing removal of identified obstacles is taken from Appendix A
of the Roadside Design Guide's ROADSIDE computer program. This method
considers the probability of a fixed object being struck and the accident severity level
if it is struck.
4.2 ACCIDENT SEVERITY INDICES
The ROADSIDE program assigns values to obstacles called Severity Indices (SI). The
Severity Indices are estimates of societal costs associated with an average crash with a
given type of object. The Severity Index is one of the factors Deschutes County uses
to assign a priority for removal or protection of an object.
4.3 ROAD PRIORITY
The actual Road Priority for each road is the summation of all the SI's times the offset
times the length of the object times the ADT all divided by the length of the road.
EXAMPLE:
Object Score = (SI) X (offset) X (length) X (ADT)
Road Priority = (sum of Object Scores) / (length of road)
4.4 FIXED OBJECT REMOVAL PLAN
There are several methods by which identified fixed objects can be addressed.
Generally, fixed objects being removed by the Road Department will fall into one of
the following groups.
GROUP I
Fixed objects that have been inventoried on roads that are included on the
Department's Capital Improvement Project list (CIP) will be removed or
protected during the time of new road construction or major reconstruction.
GROUP II
Roads not included on the CIP list will be scheduled for the removal or
protection of fixed objects in accordance with each road's priority rating and
when time and funding permit.
RSMP -page 10
DESCHUTES COUNTY
ROADSIDE SAFETY MANAGEMENT PLAN
GROUP III
Many obstacles can be removed during normal road maintenance activities.
Examples are: tree removal; and cut and fill slopes. When maintaining
roadside slopes, ideal roadside slopes should recoverable slopes for the first 10
feet from the edge of roadway.
Another non -traversable obstacle that can be removed or protected during
normal drainage maintenance activities is a culvert head wall. All culvert head
walls should be moved out to, at least, the edge of right-of-way, protected with
guardrail, or delineated.
4.5 THIRD -PARTY FIXED OBJECTS
Third -party fixed objects include utilities, landscaping, and fences. These are objects
within the road right of way that belong to private parties. They may or may not have
been constructed within the right-of-way with the permission of the Road Department.
4.6 REPORTING REMOVAL
When identified fixed objects have been removed by County Forces or others the work
will be reported and the obstacles will be removed from the list. The report will
include: objects removed, location, and date.
4.7 NEW CONSTRUCTION
All construction plans for new or reconstructed roads will be reviewed for removal of
fixed objects within the clear zone, in accordance with the Roadside Design Guide.
4.8 REPORT
Two reports are available; first; a priority list of roads and; second, a list of fixed
objects on each road. Generally, road priorities will be calculated once a year.
4.9 FUNDING
Implementation of any action item set forth in this plan is dependent upon the approval
of funding in the annual Deschutes County budget. The Board of Commissioners
may, in their discretion, not fund any or all of the action items set forth in this RSMP.
Proposed projects identified in the Deschutes County budget will only be implemented
when funding in the budget is identified for a project or for a portion of a project
arising under the Roadside Safety Management Plan.
RSMP - page 11