This volume of the Enhanced Night Visibility project is a cost-benefit analysis of the vision enhancement system (VES) and roadway marking technologies evaluated in the Phase II experiments of the Enhanced Night Visibility project. The cost-benefit analysis indicates that neither the ultraviolet-A (UV–A) headlamp nor the fluorescent pavement marking technologies are fully developed for implementation. Under the conditions simulated in the Virginia Smart Road tests, most of the combinations of experimental VESs and experimental marking materials show no net improvement in sight distance in comparison to the combination of halogen (i.e., tungsten-halogen) low-beam headlamps and a nonfluorescent pavement marking. The best-performing VES configurations were the halogen low beam (HLB) and five UV–A + HLB. HLB serves as the benchmark, with both its estimated crash reduction benefit and its incremental cost defined to be zero. The slight overall benefit of five UV–A + HLB over HLB would lead to a positive crash savings, but its cost of implementation would result in a cost-benefit ratio of 0.001 and in negative net benefits of less than zero. Among the pavement markings tested, the fluorescent paint generally performed worse than the fluorescent thermoplastic. Neither of the tested fluorescent pavement markings is forecast to generate positive benefits in comparison with the performance of the nonfluorescent pavement marking. (Author/publisher)
Abstract