Wildlife Vehicle Collision Reduction Study

WhyThisStudy

Study Results

Crash DataImpacts of CrashesCost of CrashesMinimization MeasuresWhat’s Next

Crash Data

Total WVCs and Total Crashes by Total WVCs and Total Crashes by YearYear

(Data Source: GES)(Data Source: GES)

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

FY02-03 FY03-04 FY04-05 FY05-06

Fiscal Year

Ann

ual W

VCs

Annual WVCs Estimated by Annual WVCs Estimated by Insurance IndustryInsurance Industry

Monthly Distribution of WVCs

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Pro

port

ion

of

Collis

ion

sFARS HSIS GES

Time-of-Day DistributionTime-of-Day Distribution

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2021 22 23

Hour of Day

Pro

port

ion

of

Collis

ion

s

FARS

GES

HSIS

WVCs by Number of LanesWVCs by Number of Lanes

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Number of Lanes

Perc

en

t of

Accid

en

ts

WVC

ALL

Crashes by Average Daily TrafficCrashes by Average Daily Traffic

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

1 to5000

5001-10,000

10,001-15,000

15,001-20,000

20,001-25,000

25,001-30,000

30,001-35,000

>35,000

ADT

Pro

port

ion

of

Collis

ion

s

ALLWVC

Age Distribution for All Age Distribution for All Crashes and WVCsCrashes and WVCs

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91

Driver Age

Pro

port

ion

of

Collis

ion

s

AllWVC

Accident Distribution by Posted Accident Distribution by Posted Speed LimitSpeed Limit

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Speed Limit

Pro

port

ion

of

Accid

en

ts

ALL

WVC

Costs OfCrashes

Estimated Costs of WVC Estimated Costs of WVC (Deer, Elk, and Moose)

Up to $8 billion annually. Injury,

property damage, crash scene response and

investigation.

Severity of Injury Distribution Severity of Injury Distribution for WVCs vs. All Crashesfor WVCs vs. All Crashes

WVCs Only1.7% 0.5%

2.3%

95.4%

0.04%

NonePossibleMinorSevereFatal

All Collisions

68.3%

17.6%

9.4%4.3%

0.5%

NonePossibleMinorSevereFatal

MinimizationMeasuresfor Reducing WVCs

Long Tunnels and Long Long Tunnels and Long BridgesBridges100% effective in WVC reductions, but very expensive

Wildlife Fencing

Wildlife fencing along US Hwy. 93 on Flathead Indian Reservation, MT

80-99% reported reductions in WVCs

Wildlife Crossing with Fencing

87% average reduction in WVCs

Promising Mitigation Measures

to be Further Investigated

2 Most Promising

Animal detection Systems Reduce speed by traffic calming or reducing the design speed

Mitigation measure Cost ($

/km /yr))

% DVC Reductio

n

Benefit ($ /km /yr))

Balance ($ /km /yr))

Standard warning signs $18 0% $0 -$18

Anti-fertility treatment $61,702 50% $20,970 -$40,732

Long bridges $781,250 100% $41,940 -$739,310

Long tunnels or long bridges

$1,500,000 100% $41,940 -$1,458,060

Animal detection systems (ADS)

$31,300 82% $34,391 $3,091

Population culling $2,508 50% $20,970 $18,462

Relocation $10,260 50% $20,970 $10,710

Fence (incl. dig barrier) $3,760 87% $36,488 $32,728

Fence with gap and crosswalk

$5,585 40% $16,776 $11,191

Fence with gap and ADS $9,930 82% $34,391 $24,461

Fence with underpasses $5,860 87% $36,488 $30,628

Fence with overpasses $26,485 87% $36,488 $10,003

Fence with under- and overpasses

$7,510 87% $36,488 $28,978

Measures For Which Research or Construction Resources

Should Not Be Used• Standard wildlife warning signs• Deer reflectors and mirrors • Audio signals in the right-of-way or deer whistles on vehicles• Olfactory repellants• Deer flagging models• Hazing• Intercept feeding• Wildlife relocation in order to reduce population size• Anti-fertility treatment in order to reduce population size• Seasonal road closures• Reflective collars placed on wildlife

What’s Next

WVC training manual

WVC training course