While school buses are among the safest methods to transport students, experience indicates that more school-aged pedestrians are killed during the times when buses are typically loading and unloading than any other hours of the day, with one-third of these fatalities being caused by vehicles other than the school bus. Limited sight distance is one contributing factor to school bus-related crashes, and as such, transportation agencies in the United States regularly install School Bus Stop Ahead signs upstream of school bus stops with sight visibility issues. School Bus Stop Ahead signs do raise driver awareness of school bus stops; however, there are several inherent challenges with the use of these signs. One of these challenges is that, depending on driving patterns, motorist may see these signs several times a day yet never encounter a stopped school bus; frequent viewing of the sign without witnessing an actual school bus at the bus stop limits the effectiveness of the sign. Further, while little research currently exists to quantify the benefits of School Bus Stop Ahead signs, public perception in Ohio is that these signs are ineffective. To improve the safety at school bus stops, the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) conducted a study to identify available technologies or methods that could actively warn motorists of the presence of a school bus at an upcoming school bus stop. This study consisted of two main activities: evaluating the current practice and conducting a literature search to develop a matrix of alternatives that could enhance or replace the existing practice. Evaluation found that the current practice of all States is to use static School Bus Stop Ahead signs similar to Ohio. Some States have small variations in their traffic manuals and Manual on Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), but most are based on sight distance. Most States recommend School Bus Stop Ahead sign placement in areas where sight distance issues are present, but California and Minnesota require these signs. Delaware has an option for another sign where the standard sign is deemed inappropriate. Utah’s MUTCD includes an additional sign available for situations where there are several school bus stops, and allows an option to install additional signs along high-speed roadways where there is limited refuge area. The literature search reviewed current practices and research within the transportation industry as well as other relevant industries (e.g., construction, mining) to identify technologies that could be used at school bus stops. Results were categorized by available sensors and warning devices that when paired, represent the major components of active solutions for school bus stop warnings. The literature review identified 13 potential technologies for use as a sensor, and 4 types of warning devices. Two approaches were taken to evaluate the potential solutions. The first approach was the traditional cost-benefit analysis approach where benefits of each solution were monetized and compared for three deployment scenarios. This approach provided insight into fiscal impacts for each solution and supporting data to justify the selection of an alternative. The second approach was a benefits assessment that qualitatively evaluated each solution across a set of metrics and applying a weighted scale. This qualitative assessment allowed the inclusion of characteristics such as training and coordination needs as well as deployment readiness for each alternative. Supported by the cost-benefit analysis, the results of the benefits assessment showed that a Bluetooth-based system using flashing beacons to warn drivers of an upcoming school bus stop was the recommended solution for a pilot test. This system will have low capital costs, is limited in complexity, and will be simple and inexpensive to operate and maintain for the school district. (Author/publisher)
Samenvatting