 The 60s. A period of time when society seemed to be bribing most everything to the limit. In terms of cars back then, the limit was often too far. Generally, cars back in the 60s were heavier, bigger, and far more dangerous. But there have been marked safety improvements over the years. Take this 1966 GTO for instance. It was a fast, sporty, and beautiful car in its day. It still is, for that matter. But, as was the case with many cars in those days, when rubber left the road, the scene was entirely different. Now here we have a late model Firebird. It too is a powerful car. But there are considerable differences between this car and the 66 GTO. Seat belts, for example, at most, were an option in the GTO. But in the Firebird, the shoulder harness and lap belt have become a standard safety requirement. The dashboard in the GTO is metal, not designed with safety as a top priority. But as you can see, the new dash is padded with no dangerous protrusions. Also, the Firebird is equipped with an airbag, a safer braking system, unibody construction, improved steering, and more. These and other changes are the result of a traffic safety program spearheaded in the mid-60s. Many of these improvements have proven to be lifesavers. But aside from the obvious automobile design changes, many of you may not be aware of other, less obvious life-saving changes. Not only was there a call for safer automobiles, but also for safer highways. During the 60s, the Federal Highway Administration and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials began a program for creating safer highways and road sites. And that's what this presentation is all about. The guidelines, policies and procedures used to create a safer roadside. The ultimate objective? To eliminate fixed roadside obstacles. Giving errant drivers a chance to come to a safe stop. The Department of Transportation's goal is to remove, replace with breakaway designs or safely shield roadside obstructions. To give drivers the edge if they should leave the edge of the roadway. But achieving these goals has not been financially easy for the DOT. In the beginning, priorities were set to deal with obstacles creating the greatest problems for errant drivers. Then, as additional money became available, the other roadside problems were addressed. Since the mid-60s, the DOT has been continually making safety improvements to Washington's highways. Rockout crops on the outside of curbs were shielded. Trees located close to the roadway were removed. Signs and luminaires were either relocated or designed with a breakaway system. Spearing guardrail ends were replaced with new breakaway designs or buried. Exposed bridge rail ends were safely shielded. And where possible, roadside slopes were flattened to eliminate the need for guardrails. In intersections, signal poles, signal control cabinets and utility poles subject to being hit by large trucks and buses making turns were relocated. These improvements have resulted not only in safer highways, but in highways that are more aesthetically appealing. These changes have reduced injuries and saved lives. But the last obstacle to be addressed in the safer roadside effort was the unforgiving utility pole. A car came up this roadway trying to make a left curve. Instead, the vehicle, because of its excessive speed, spun broadside and struck this pole behind me. As a result of it, the passenger suffered severe mental and physical disabilities to this day. In my opinion, if this pole hadn't have been there, this accident would have been less severe and the injuries would have been less severe. Since 1970, 231 people have been killed or disabled from striking your utility pole on Washington's highways. 8,726 people have been injured. In 1990, vehicle utility pole accidents were the number four cause of deaths involving fixed roadside objects on Washington state highways. Just three years earlier, these types of deaths ranked number two. Not only has this issue been important to the state of Washington, but it has been of major concern nationally. Because of this common interest, the Department of Transportation has in place a comprehensive program to address the problem. It started in 1984 when the Washington state DOT launched phase two of its safer roadside campaign. DOT officials began creating what is now called the control zone policy. The urgency of this policy was spurred by a proposed federal mandate on the subject. This mandate was later adopted as a final rule in the May 1985 federal register. The control zone is the area within the highway right-of-way in which placement of above ground utility objects will be controlled. The intent of the state's control zone policy is to provide a safer roadside while reasonably accommodating utilities. The new program was not intended to force utilities off the highway right-of-way. Instead, it was established to work with the utility companies in determining when, where, and how poles within the control zone could be safely accommodated. But DOT officials recognized that utilities are funded by the public. Changes in utility accommodations would affect the public's pocketbook, and in convenience, the DOT wanted to avoid. So the Department of Transportation contacted the Washington Utilities Coordinating Council, or WUCC. A joint committee called the Aerial Utility Advisory Board was formed. This board, made up of representatives from power and telephone companies and DOT, is an example of a good working relationship between the private sector and a state agency. The control zone guidelines developed by this board are in full accordance with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the National Research Council, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Washington State Department of Transportation Philosophy. Key terms used by the advisory board to describe the roadside include the foreslope, which is the slope extending from the highway to the bottom of the ditch, the backslope, which is the slope extending from the bottom of the ditch away from the highway, a utility object, which is defined as a utility facility that exists above ground and is located within the state highway right of way, and the control zone, as mentioned earlier, is the area within the highway right of way in which placement of an above ground utility object is controlled. This roadside area is carefully defined by the control zone distance table. The table takes into account the posted speed limit, average number of automobiles traveling that area each day, and the grade of the backslope. It is based on the fact that low traffic volumes and low speed equal low risk. High traffic volumes and high speed equate to high risk. All of the factors just mentioned, combined, determine the width of the control zone. For example, the posted speed limit along this stretch of highway is 55 miles per hour. The average daily traffic is 8,550, and the backslope is 4 to 1. Using the table, we find that this particular control zone should be 21 feet from the white fog line. It is the Department of Transportation's desire to eliminate all obstructions within the control zone, or at the very least, minimize the number of objects remaining. An obstruction-free control zone is the ultimate safe roadside, the ultimate goal, a roadside made as safe as possible for all traffic at all times during all conditions. The control zone guidelines classify all utility objects into three categories. Location 1, location 2, and location 3. Location 1 objects are the most critical. These obstructions are most likely to be hit by a motorist. Location 1 objects can be found in the foreslope on the outside of curves where the advisory speed limit is 15 or more miles per hour below the posted speed limit. They are also objects located within the turn radius area of public intersections. Barriers, embankments, rock outcroppings, ditches, or other roadside features that are likely to direct a vehicle into a utility object are normally considered location 1 objects. And finally, any object closer than 5 feet beyond the edge of the usable shoulder is also a location 1 object. Location 2 utility objects are less likely to be struck by an automobile. They're still within the control zone, but they are farther off the roadway. Location 3 utility objects are located outside and sometimes inside the control zone. When found inside the control zone, they're shielded by a barrier placed in an area normally inaccessible to vehicles or they utilize a breakaway design. The aerial utility advisory board's first priority was to eliminate location 1 objects, which are the most likely to be struck. As previously mentioned, since utilities are a public service, funds to pay for such a change would indirectly come from the public. The challenge facing the advisory board was to devise a plan for safely accommodating utility facilities in a cost effective and fair manner. They needed to maximize safety for motorists, yet minimize the impact on utility companies and the rate paying public. Through the collective efforts of the board and the DOT, the following control zone guidelines were adopted. These guidelines can be found in the Department of Transportation's Utilities Accommodation Policy and Manual. First, the utility and DOT will establish the number of utility objects that the utility will relocate or mitigate in a given year. This number is called the annual mitigation target or AMT. The AMT is based on the following formula. M equals the number of miles of utility-owned above-ground facilities located within the highway right-of-way. N equals the utility's average span length in feet, in other words, the average distance between poles or other support standards. Z equals the percent of utility-owned objects estimated to be location 1 and 2. Y equals the number of years required for total compliance. 50 years is the maximum. A utility shall make every effort to achieve its AMT. If it fails to achieve its AMT in a given year, the number shall be increased for the following year. This will allow the average number of objects relocated or mitigated over time to equal its AMT. If a utility exceeds its AMT, the utility may reduce the number of objects in the following year. This too will allow the average number of objects relocated or mitigated over time to equal its AMT. The utility will report its number of relocated or mitigated objects to the DOT for tracking the utility's progress in meeting its AMT. In some cases, the AMT may be recalculated. To do so, the utility must demonstrate that there are fewer objects to be moved or mitigated because of changed conditions or the reclassification of location 2 objects. A utility can meet its AMT plan by addressing existing objects during DOT highway projects and utility reconstruction. To meet that portion of the AMT not addressed through highway improvements or utility reconstruction, each utility will establish a program for systematically studying its control zone objects. Under this program, the utility will establish a yearly plan for achieving the balance of the AMT, giving special consideration to highway average daily traffic and accident data. If it is determined through an engineering analysis that a location 1 object cannot be moved to location 3 or mitigated, a variance may be granted. If a location 2 object cannot be moved to location 3 or mitigated, a reclassification will be considered, if justified, through an engineering analysis and the application of the cost-effective selection procedure. The cost-effective selection procedure is a rational method developed by AASHTO for comparing roadside improvement alternatives. The control zone policy lists the processes for obtaining a variance or a reclassification. Qualifying for a variance or a reclassification is not easy, but under the right circumstances, when moving a utility object is just not practical, a variance or reclassification can be very helpful to a utility company. As you've seen, highway safety has come a long way since the 60s. As automobiles have changed, so have our roadways and road sides. Perhaps the evolution toward a safer roadside has not been as obvious as the improvements in vehicle design. But records show that removing roadside obstacles is reducing injuries and saving lives. The control zone policy fulfills state and federal goals by providing an acceptable approach and timeline to achieving an obstacle-free roadside. It is an aggressive, yet fair approach to establishing a safer roadside. The joint cooperation between the utility industry and the Washington State Department of Transportation is proof that industry and government can effectively work together. As times change, so do people, places and things. As long as there are automobiles out there on the road, there will be the continuing effort by the DOT and the utility industry to make our highways safe for everyone.