Feature Story

PennDOT Tailgating Treatment:
A Roadway Program That Helps Cut Crashes

Aggressive driving crashes along a corridor on U.S. 11 in South Centre Township of Columbia County, Pennsylvania, had reached the top of the district's aggressive driving corridors list when PennDOT officials decided to attack the problem and associated tailgating practices on the corridor. Working with law enforcement officers, local magistrates, and PennDOT District 3-0 representatives, the agency instituted a "Tailgating Treatment" program the simplicity of which belies its dramatic results. "Crashes dropped 60% in one year after institution of the 'dot' program along one mile of the seven-mile corridor," said Assistant Traffic Manager Robert Hepner. The agency was honored with a "2001 National Highway Safety Award" in the Federal Highway Administration/Roadway Safety Foundation program that year. Here's what PennDOT did.

Identifying the Problem

PennDOT officials looked at all crash data for a five-year period along the specific seven-mile corridor of U.S. 11 and identified relevant police agencies. PennDOT did a corridor data search for approximately 33 aggressive driving factors from police crash reports. They narrowed the causes of crashes along the corridor to the aggressive driving factors that included following cars too closely and speeding.

Using a concept developed in PennDOT's central office in Harrisburg, District 3-0 was one of the first to put into practice the two-second rule of keeping a safe distance behind the vehicle in front using new visual tools. Beginning in 1999-2000, dots were painted onto the roadway and 14 straightforward signs were installed along the problematic one-mile stretch of the three-lane highway. The signs carried the messages, "Keep Min 2 Dots Apart," "Beware of Aggressive Drivers," "Buckle Up It's the Law," "Maintain Safe Following Distance," "Targeted Enforcement Area," and "Don't Tailgate."

Cooperative Efforts

Before instituting the program, however, the "Tailgating Treatment" team knew that its success would depend on cooperation from the local police. "Enforcement was needed to maintain adherence to laws inhibiting aggressive and unsafe driving. The safety dots and signs were tools for reference by motorists to maintain safe driving distances from other vehicles. Police officers agreed to spend time in the locations, serving as deterrents and enforcers, and the costs involved were at their expense," Hepner noted.

In addition to police cooperation, enforcement of the law required local magistrates to buy into the concept to uphold arrests made. A number of meetings were held to iron out all the issues before work orders were sent to the PennDOT county office to install signs. From concept to execution the program took approximately six to eight months.

Dots Do It

"The visual signs and dot pavement markings are working well along this corridor," said Hepner. The average daily traffic of the targeted area of Route 11 is around 13,600. "The pavement markings and signs on the stretch of U.S. 11 in Columbia County paid off with a 60% drop in crashes one year after implementation," Hepner continued. Before implementation there were 135 crashes costing approximately *$1.9 million to society. Afterwards, crashes decreased to 60 at a cost of $1.3 million, resulting in a $600,000 savings to society. According to Hepner, costs of implementation in the first year are estimated at just over $11,000, including enforcement.

"Savings include reductions in crash site clean-up, decreased emergency services, fewer police personnel to cover crashes, reduced property damage, and a time savings to the public from the congestion resulting from traffic crashes. Apart from costs to the state, the public losses are diminished as well, affecting insurance, work hours, property, life and more," stated PennDOT Safety Press Officer, Michael Hess.

After eight to nine months, statistics indicate that crash reductions remained fairly constant, pointing to the success of the program.

Implementation Elsewhere

Since the initial U.S. 11 South Centre Township experiment, other counties are now using the "Tailgating Treatment" program. Pennsylvania Districts 2 and 5 have instituted similar programs.

Hepner cautioned that the "dot" program is not a panacea. "Dots can't be utilized in congested areas. For example, they would not be effective where there are high volumes, and when roadways are running at or near full capacity. Dot implementation would back up traffic," he said. "In addition, the program will not work without enforcement, the key to its effectiveness," Hepner said. In South Centre Township, "Local officials like the physical reference of the dots. They provide a hard factual reference for making an arrest and penalizing those caught violating the law," Hepner said.

Signage

What was involved in changing the physical characteristics of the roadway along U.S. 11? Because the signs were not standard, special signs had to be designed. Crews also painted the dots onto the road, a task that is repeated every spring. Durable markings may be on the horizon, Hepner said. Initially, it cost PennDOT a little over $6,078 (estimated) for just the pavement dots and additional signage. They estimate the cost for 14 signs at $4,000. "It also cost the South Centre Township police about $5,200 for extra enforcement," Hepner noted.

Judging from the relatively low cost to implement a program that realized over $600,000 in savings for the period studied, PennDOT's "Tailgating Treatment" program seems well worth the cost. The savings of lives and protection of property is also immeasurable.

"While this is an effective program, it is not a panacea, but a useful tool," Hepner cautioned. If drivers don't obey the law or are DUIs, all the signage in the world won't help the situation. But this seemingly simple and straightforward visual reminder of safe distances between vehicles has produced measurable positive results that may be helpful in other geographic areas of the country where conditions warrant consideration of a "Tailgating Treatment" program.

The editors of the Roadway Safety Reporter thank Mr. Robert Hepner, Assistant Traffic Manager, and Mr. Michael J. Hess, Safety Press Officer, for their cooperation in developing this story.

Contributing Factors Considered "Aggressive Driving" Influencers Within PA

Illegal U-Turn
Illegal/Careless Right Turn on Red
Improper/Careless Turning
Turned from Wrong Lane or Position
Failure to Respond to Flashing Signal
Fail to Respond to RR Crossing controls
Fail to Respond to Officer, Flag Person
Failure to Respond to School Zone Signal
Failure to Respond to Emergency Vehicle
Failure to Respond to Other/Unknown Traffic Control Device
Ran Red Light Trying to Beat Yellow
Anticipated Green Light Before Change
Proceeded without Clearance
Didn't Stop, Slowed Down
Tailgating
Failure to Heed Stopped School Bus
Failure To Heed Pedestrian on Roadway
Failure to Heed Stopped Vehicle
Careless Passing
Careless Lane Change
Passing in a "No Passing" Zone
Making Improper Entrance to Highway Making an Improper Exit from Highway Braking Late at Improper Location Excessive Acceleration
Over Posted Speed Limit
Too Fast For Conditions - Roadway Design
Too Fast for Conditions (Traffic Pedestrians, etc.)
Too Fast for Conditions - Inclement Weather
Too Fast for Conditions - Combination of Above
Driver Fleeing Police (Police Chase) Speed Related - Other

*Crash costs were determined by a PennDOT formula to denominate average costs for property damage only, injury and fatal crashes.