Survey and Interviews

To capture institutional knowledge on the history of wrong-way driving countermeasures throughout Illinois, researchers developed and presented online surveys to IDOT and ISP personnel. The following sections detail the findings of those surveys.

3.4.1 Survey to Selected IDOT Employees

The survey was sent to selected employees of IDOT who were familiar with signing and striping practices on freeways and at interchanges. Responses were received from 20

participants from eight of the nine different districts. The responses from this IDOT survey were presented by signage type, predicted causes, and suggested countermeasures. Participants noted that DO NOT ENTER signs were just as common as WRONG WAY signs on Illinois freeway exit ramps, but both were significantly more common than ONE WAY signs. Almost all survey participants (91%) noted that if multiple signs were used, they were not on the same pole. The districts (9%) that did mount signs on the same pole (at some time) did not have a standard for which sign was on top. All agencies noted that there was a policy for the order and placement of signage along freeway ramps.

An investigation of sign sizes indicated that a common size of DO NOT ENTER (R5-1) signs was 30 × 30 inches (54%) and that a common choice for WRONG WAY signs (R5-1a) was 36 × 24 inches (83%). Similarly, the results indicated a clear trend in mounting height of at least 5 feet for DO NOT ENTER, WRONG WAY, and ONE WAY signs; these results were supported by

30

interview findings. Survey participants indicated that most districts either do not or have not used supplemental signage or pavement markings to prevent wrong-way driving.

The next section of the IDOT survey asked the participant's professional opinion about the causes of wrong-way driving events. The findings, as displayed in Figure 3.4, indicate a lack of consensus on the true causes of wrong-way driving and justify the research effort described herein.

The final part of the survey to IDOT employees found that only 18% of districts were aware of any countermeasures used and that any countermeasures that existed had been since

discontinued. These countermeasures included additional lighting (67%) and gates/spikes (33%).

Figure 3.4. Survey responses for wrong-way driving causes. 3.4.2 Survey to ISP Officers

The survey distributed within the ISP solicited 249 responses from 12 districts. The first few questions asked the officer’s estimate of the number of reported wrong-way driving reports and arrests his/her district had during the previous year. Table 3.5 displays these findings.

Table 3.5 Estimated Annual Wrong-Way Driving Reports and Arrests ISP District Reports Arrests/Tickets

11 45 11 District Chicago 37 8 10 17 2 14 11 3 9 11 3 18 8 1 6 7 2 20 7 1 12 3 1 22 3 0 2 1 0 21 0 0

Districts Not Responding: 1, 5, 6, 7, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19

Night 17% Alcohol and/or drugs 17% Drivers over 65 years old 17% Lost or confused 11% Unfamiliar drivers / tourists 8% Construction zones 5% Distracted drivers 5% Cell phones/ texting 5% Weather 6% Glare / visibility 3% Missing signs 3% Don’t Know 3%

31

Officers were also asked which countermeasures they perceived to be most effective at preventing wrong-way driving events. The feedback indicated that markings, signs, reflectors, and lighting were preferred options. Other common choices include enforcement of DUI laws and improved entry and exit ramp designs.

Officers were also asked which freeways and segments had the highest occurrence of wrong-way driving in their districts. The researchers received a significant amount of information that correlated with data found from the crash reports. Finally, the survey asked what the most significant factor in apprehending wrong-way drivers was. The most common responses were availability of a law enforcement officer at time of the call (77 responses), response officer location (50 responses), and wrong-way drivers quickly turning around (48 responses). 3.4.3 Findings from Stakeholder Interviews

The key findings of discussions with Jason Salley and Julia Fox, engineers at IDOT District 1, included identification of three common wrong-way entry locations in the Chicago area and the fact that winter maintenance conflicts with some wrong-way driving

countermeasures such as low-mounted signs (snow drifts may cover them) and spike/raised pavement markings (snow plows could damage/remove them). The engineers noted that a ranking of interchange design types that were least likely to cause wrong-way driving would be helpful.

During the interview with IDOT District 8 personnel, including Wendy Southerland, Jim Wessel, John "Bo" Wedmore, and Jeff Abel, researchers found similar issues with low-mounted signs and other countermeasures. For example, engineers in this district were cautious about the maintenance/ liability issues associated with many countermeasures such as power needs, mowing clearance, and MUTCD adherence.

The research team also interviewed personnel at other agencies to collect best practices from throughout the United States regarding wrong-way driving prevention. When the research team interviewed officials with the NTTA in Dallas, they learned that the agency found no correlation between wrong-way driving events and ramp geometries. The North Texas Tollway has used a variety of countermeasures to prevent wrong-way driving, including through-arrows on arterials, LED-illuminated signs, raised pavement markings, signpost tape, and a detection system for wrong-way drivers.

At a meeting with the Harris County Toll Road Authority in Houston, researchers found that the agency uses radar and in-pavement sensors for detecting wrong-way drivers and were just beginning to deploy a video detection system.

The last interview was conducted with personnel at Caltrans District 7, Los Angeles. The agency has been using low-mounted signs for many years and has created and operated a program that tracks the prevalence of wrong-way driving events.

32