Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Potential Impacts of Highway Median Barriers on Wildlife: State of the Practice and Gap Analysis

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Median barriers separate lanes of traffic moving in opposite directions on multilane highways. Such traffic safety devices can reduce head-on collisions but also have the potential to reduce landscape permeability by impeding wildlife movements across highways. Median barriers may also increase the risk of wildlife–vehicle collisions if an animal becomes trapped or confused amid barriers searching for a place to cross. A 2002 Transportation Research Board report highlighted the need to better understand the potential impacts of highway median barriers on wildlife. This lack of information can cause significant project delays and increase transportation project costs. This study represents the first attempt in North America to bring together information about highway median and roadside barriers and wildlife and provide preliminary guidelines to balance the needs of motorist safety and wildlife movements.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  • American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (2006) Roadside design guide, 3rd edn. AASHTO, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (2011) Roadside design guide, 4th edn. AASHTO, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong JJ (1994) Dead animal observations on Ontario highways. Ontario Ministry of Transportation. Appended in Hubbs A, Boonstra R (1995) Study design to assess the effect of highway median barriers on wildlife. Ontario Ministry of Transportation

  • Bank FG, Irwin C, Evink G, Gray M, Hagood S, Kinar J, Levy A, Paulson D, Ruediger B, Sauvajot R, Scott D, White P (2002) Wildlife habitat connectivity across European highways. Office of International Programs, Publication No. FHWA-PL-02-011. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC

  • Barnum SA (2003) Identifying the best locations along highways to provide safe crossing opportunities for wildlife: a handbook for highway planners and designers. Report No. CDOT-DTD-UCD-2003-9 Final Report. Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergh T, Moberg J (2005) Country report—Sweden. In: 2005 International symposium on highway geometric design, Chicago

  • Cain AT, Tuovila V, Hewitt D, Tewes M (2003) Effects of a highway and mitigation projects on bobcats in Southern Texas. Biol Conserv 114:189–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • California Department of Transportation (1997) Cunneen, Caltrans announce new freeway barrier policy (press release, 7 July 1997). http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/news/pressrel/97pr16.htm. Last accessed 28 July 2006

  • Carbaugh BJ, Vaughan J, Bellis E, Graves H (1975) Distribution and activity of white-tailed deer along an interstate highway. J Wildl Manag 39:570–581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Center for Environmental Excellence, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (2005) Best practices in context-sensitive solutions 2005 competition

  • Clevenger AP, Kociolek A (2006) Highway median impacts on wildlife movement and mortality: state of the practice survey and gap analysis. Caltrans Research Report No. F/CA/MI-2006/09. California Department of Transportation, Sacramento

    Google Scholar 

  • Clevenger AP, Chruszcz B, Gunson K (2003) Spatial patterns and factors influencing small vertebrate fauna road-kill aggregations. Biol Conserv 109:15–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper JM (1999) Mitigation of impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat for advanced construction candidate package 1. Manning, Cooper and Associates, Sidney, British Columbia, Canada

  • Elzohairy YM, Janusz C, Tasca L (2004) Characteristics of motor vehicle–wild animal collisions: an Ontario case study. Submitted to Transportation Research Board 2004 annual meeting, Washington DC

  • Federal Highway Administration (2006a) Median barriers: FHWA recommends ready to-use-safety technologies. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tools/median_barrier.htm. Last accessed 28 July 2006

  • Federal Highway Administration (2006b) US Department of Transportation. Crashworthiness longitudinal barrier listing and acceptance letters. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/road_hardware/longbarriers.htm. Last accessed 28 July 2006

  • Federal Highway Administration (2006c) Median-barrier gaps let animals cross the highway. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/wildlifeprotection. Last accessed 2 July 2013

  • Ford AT, Fahrig L (2008) Movement patterns of eastern chipmunks near roads. J Mammal 89:895–903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman RTT, Sperling D, Bissonette J, Clevenger A, Cutshall C, Dale V, Fahrig L, France R, Goldman C, Heanue K, Jones J, Swanson F, Turrentine T, Winter T (2003) Road ecology: science and solutions. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabler HC, Gabauer D, Bowen D (2005) Evaluation of cross median crashes: Final report. FHWA-NJ-2005-004

  • Gattis JL, Balakumar R, Duncan L (2004) Effects of rural highway median treatments and access. Transportation Research Board 2005 annual meeting CD-ROM

  • Gunson KE, Mountrakis G, Quackenbush L (2011) Spatial wildlife–vehicle collision models: a review of current work and its application to transportation mitigation projects. J Environ Manag 92:1074–1082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hostick GA, Styskel E (2005) Completion report: Baker-to-Cottonwood Road Deer Monitoring ODOT PSC # 23928. Prepared by Ecological Services, Bend, OR for Oregon Department of Transportation, Bend, OR

  • Hubbard MW, Danielson B, Schmitz R (2000) Factors influencing the location of deer–vehicle accidents in Iowa. J Wildl Manag 64:707–712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbs A, Boonstra R (1995) Study design to assess the effect of highway median barriers on wildlife. Ontario Ministry of Transportation, North Bay

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson M, Howard E (2007) Road safety vision 2010. Report prepared for the Canadian Traffic Safety Institute and Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, Burnaby

  • Knuiman MW, Council F, Reinfurt W (1993) Association of median width and highway accident rates. FHWA-RD-93-046. Federal Highway Administration, McLean

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohn BE, Frair J, Unger D, Gehring T, Shelley D, Anderson E, Keenlance P (2000) Impact of the US Highway 53 expansion project on wolves in Northwestern Wisconsin: Final Report. Prepared by Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for Wisconsin Department of Transportation

  • Kozel SM (1997) New Jersey median barrier history. Roads to the future. Federal Highway Administration—US Department of Transportation. http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Jersey_Barrier.html. Last updated 6 June 2004. Last accessed 2 July 2013

  • Lewis J, Rachlow J, Horne J, Garton E, Wakkinen W, Hayden J, Zager P (2011) Identifying habitat characteristics to predict highway crossing areas for black bears within a human-modified landscape. Landsc Urban Plan 101:99–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd J, Casey A (2005) Wildlife hot spots along highways in Northwestern Oregon. Prepared by Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc., Portland, OR for Oregon Department of Transportation Central Geo-Environmental Unit, Salem, OR

  • Lovallo MJ, Anderson E (1996) Bobcat movements and home ranges relative to roads in Wisconsin. Wildl Soc Bull 24:71–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch JM (1998) North Carolina’s freeway across median safety study. Division of Highways, North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh

    Google Scholar 

  • Malo JE, Suarez F, Diez A (2004) Can we mitigate animal–vehicle accidents using predictive models? J Appl Ecol 41:701–710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDevitt CF (2000) Basics of concrete barriers. Public Roads vol 63, No 5. www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/marapr00/concrete.htm. Federal Highway Administration, US Department of Transportation. Last accessed 2 July 2013

  • McDonald W, St Clair C (2004) The effects of artificial and natural barriers on the movements of small mammals in Banff National Park, Canada. Oikos 105:397–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire TM, Morrall J (2000) Strategic highway improvements to minimize environmental impacts within the Canadian Rocky Mountain national parks. Can J Civil Eng 27:523–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer E, Ahmed I (2004) Modeling of deer vehicle crash likelihood using roadway and roadside characteristics. In: Transportation Research Board 2004 Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers CD-ROM. Washington, DC

  • National Research Council (2005) Assessing and managing the ecological impacts of paved roads. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuman TR, Nitzel JJ, Antonucci N, Nevill S, Stein W (2008) Guidance for implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan, vol 20: a guide for reducing head-on crashes on freeways. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 500

  • Olson D, Sujka M, Manchas B (2013) Cable median barrier program in Washington State. Report No. WA-RD 812.1. Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsson M (2009) Mittbarriärer – en kunskapsöversikt. Centrum för biolgisk mångfald skriftserie 28, Karlstand (in Swedish)

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxley DJ, Fenton M, Carmody G (1974) The effects of roads on small mammals. J Appl Ecol 11:51–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persaud BN, Retting R, Lyon C (2004) Crash reduction following installation of centerline rumble strips on rural two-lane roads. Accid Anal Prev 36:1073–1079

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ray MH, McGinnis R (1997) Synthesis of highway practice 244: guardrail and median barrier crashworthiness. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Ray MH, Weir J, Hopp J (2003) NCHRP Report 490 In-service performance of traffic barriers. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Roedenbeck I, Fahrig L, Findlay C, Houlahan J, Jaeger J, Klar N, Kramer-Schadt S, van der Grift E (2007) The Rauischholzhausen agenda for road ecology. Ecol Soc 12(1):11 [online]. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art11/

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross D (2004) Analyzing the resistance values of the 401 Highway to wildlife movements in the Thousand Islands Section of the Algonquin to Adirondack Corridor and Thousand Islands Frontenac Arch Biosphere Reserve. Prepared for Algonquin to Adirondack Conservation Association, Ontario

  • Ruby DE, Spotila J, Martin S, Kemp S (1994) Behavioral responses to barriers by desert tortoises: Implications for wildlife management. Herpetol Monogr 8:144–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singleton PH, Lehmkuhl J (2000) I-90 Snoqualmie Pass wildlife habitat linkage assessment final report. Wenatchee Forestry Sciences Lab, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, Wenatchee

    Google Scholar 

  • Stasburg G, Crawley L (2005) Keeping traffic on the right side of the road. Public Roads vol 68, No. 4. US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/05jan/06.htm. Last accessed 2 July 2013

  • Strathman JG, Duecker K, Zhang T, Williams T (2001) Analysis of design attributes and crashes on the Oregon highway system. Final report SPR 321 #1712. Prepared by Center for Urban Studies, Portland State University, Portland

  • Taylor HW (2005) Preventing roadway departures. Public Roads vol 69, No. 1. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/05jul/03.htm. Last accessed 2 July 2012

  • Transportation Research Board (2002) Environmental research needs in transportation. In: Conference proceedings 28. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

  • Urbitran Associates (2005) Strategies for addressing deer–vehicle crashes. Prepared for North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority—Development of Regional Safety Priorities

  • US Department of Transportation (2006) Priority, market-ready technologies and innovations cable median barriers. FHWA-HRT-06-058. HRTC-01/01-06(1M)E

  • Washington State Department of Transportation (2005) Design manual M22-01. Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods JG (1990) Effectiveness of fences and underpasses on the Trans-Canada Highway and their impact on ungulate populations in Banff National Park, Alberta. Canadian Parks Service, Calgary

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuur A, Ieno E, Smith G (2007) Analysing ecological data. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). We thank Harold Hunt for guidance and support and Dave Hacker for initiating this work. The authors greatly appreciate the transportation agency specialists in the U.S. and Canada who participated in this survey and graciously offered their insights as well as the other transportation and wildlife professionals who granted our requests for unpublished information and offered permission for use herein. We thank three anonymous reviewers for valuable input and critique of an early draft.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Western Transportation Institute, Montana State University, PO Box 174250, Bozeman, MT, 59717, USA

    Anthony P. Clevenger & Angela V. Kociolek

Authors
  1. Anthony P. Clevenger
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Angela V. Kociolek
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anthony P. Clevenger.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Indexes, Databases, and Websites Searched for Literature Review

Western Transportation Institute’s in-house ProCite Database.

Biological Abstracts.

Dissertation Abstracts.

Ecology Abstracts.

TRIS Online.

FHWA Critter Crossings.

Wildlife Crossings Toolkit.

Wildlife and Ecology Studies Worldwide.

Applied Science & Technology Abstracts.

InfoTrac OneFile (multidisciplinary index).

Academic Search Premier (multidisciplinary index).

Compendex.

Web of Science.

Government Publications.

International Conference on Ecology and Transportation (ICOET proceedings).

FHWA Environmental Research Database.

Wildlife, Fisheries and Transportation Research.

Road Ecology Center at UC-Davis.

Infra Eco Network Europe.

Deercrash.com.

Google Scholar.

Google.

Appendix 2: Median Barrier State of the Practice Survey

  1. I.

    Background information

    1. a.

      Last name.

    2. b.

      First name.

    3. c.

      State/Province.

    4. d.

      Agency.

    5. e.

      Position title.

    6. f.

      Area in your charge (i.e., state/province, region, district, etc.).

    7. g.

      Number of years in the transportation field.

    8. h.

      Responsibilities (brief).

    9. i.

      Email.

    10. j.

      Phone number.

  2. II.

    Survey questions

Utilization history

  1. 1.

    What types of median barriers does your agency use on any or all roadway types, i.e., multi-lane interstate, two-lane rural roads, etc.? Please select all that apply.

    1. a.

      Concrete Jersey or NJ-shape.

    2. b.

      Concrete F-shape.

    3. c.

      Concrete constant-slope Texas.

    4. d.

      Concrete low profile.

    5. e.

      Steel beam.

    6. f.

      Thrie-beam.

    7. g.

      Cable (Safence).

    8. h.

      Cable (three-strand).

    9. i.

      Cable (four-strand).

    10. j.

      Centerline rumble strips.

    11. k.

      Grassy strip.

    12. l.

      Painted centerline.

    13. m.

      Other (please describe).

  2. 2.

    When did your agency…[select: (i) Last year, (ii) 5 years ago, (iii) 10 years ago, (iv) 15 years ago, (v) 20 or more years ago, (vi) not applicable].

    1. a.

      Begin installing raised median barriers of any type?

    2. b.

      Begin installing concrete Jersey or F-shape median barriers?

    3. c.

      Discontinue installing concrete Jersey or F-shape median barriers?

    4. d.

      Begin installing concrete constant-slope Texas median barriers?

    5. e.

      Discontinue installing concrete constant-slope Texas median barriers?

    6. f.

      Begin installing steel or thrie-beam median barriers?

    7. g.

      Discontinue installing steel or thrie-beam median barriers?

    8. h.

      Begin installing cable median barriers?

    9. i.

      Discontinue installing cable median barriers?

    10. j.

      Begin installing centerline rumble strips?

    11. k.

      Discontinue installing centerline rumble strips?

    12. l.

      Begin installing grassy median barriers?

    13. m.

      Discontinue installing grassy median barriers?

  3. 3.

    What criteria/variables does your agency use/analyze to determine the need for median barrier installation? Please select all that apply.

    1. a.

      Historical cross-over collision records.

    2. b.

      Cost–benefit analyses.

    3. c.

      Collision probability models.

    4. d.

      Average daily traffic.

    5. e.

      Median width.

    6. f.

      Posted speed limit.

    7. g.

      Roadway segment in relation to interchanges or other roadway feature.

    8. h.

      Controlled access.

    9. i.

      Slope.

    10. j.

      Environmental factors.

    11. k.

      Geometric factors.

    12. l.

      Traffic factors.

    13. m.

      Rural/suburban/urban location.

    14. n.

      Other (please describe).

  4. 4.

    What guidelines does your agency use to determine the type and location of median barrier installations? Please select all that apply.

    1. a.

      AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) Roadside Design Guide

    2. b.

      State/Provincial guidelines.

    3. c.

      Agency guidelines.

    4. d.

      Another state/province agency’s guidelines.

    5. e.

      Use ad hoc approach.

    6. f.

      Not applicable; no need for median barrier installation guidelines.

  5. 5.

    Please describe any specific uses for barrier types utilized by your agency, i.e., as median barrier versus edge barrier, in high snow areas versus snow-free areas, etc.

Trends

  1. 1.

    Please characterize your agency/state/province’s installation trends for each of the following median barrier types [select: (i) increasing, (ii) stable, (iii) decreasing, (iv) not applicable].

    1. a.

      Concrete Jersey or F-slope,

    2. b.

      Concrete constant-slope Texas,

    3. c.

      Steel or thrie-beam,

    4. d.

      Cable,

    5. e.

      Centerline rumble strips,

    6. f.

      Grassy median,

    7. g.

      Please describe any other trends in the use of median barriers by your agency/state/province.

  2. 2.

    Please select the median barrier type your agency is most likely to use for each of the following roadway types [select: (i) Concrete Jersey/F-slope, (ii) concrete constant-slope Texas, (iii) steel/thrie-beam, (iv) cable, (v) centerline rumble strips, (vi) grassy median, (vii) painted centerline].

    1. a.

      Rural 2-lane,

    2. b.

      Rural 4-lane,

    3. c.

      Suburban 2-lane,

    4. d.

      Suburban 4-lane,

    5. e.

      Suburban >4-lane,

    6. f.

      Urban 2-lane,

    7. g.

      Urban 4-lane,

    8. h.

      Urban >4-lane,

Performance evaluation

  1. 1.

    Has your agency studied the effectiveness of installed median barriers for motorist safety?

    1. a.

      Yes.

    2. b.

      No.

    3. c.

      I do not know.

If yes, what type of median barrier(s) was studied?

If yes, what were the measures of effectiveness? Please select all that apply.

  1. a.

    Reduction of cross-over collisions.

  2. b.

    Reduction of cross-over collision fatalities.

  3. c.

    Reduction of injury severity.

  4. d.

    Lives saved.

  5. e.

    Dollars saved.

  6. f.

    Other (please describe).

  7. 2.

    Did the installation of median barriers enable your agency to achieve its a priori goal(s) for increasing motorist safety?

    1. a.

      Yes.

    2. b.

      No.

    3. c.

      I do not know.

  8. 3.

    Has your agency studied the effects of median barriers on wildlife movement and/or mortality?

    1. a.

      Yes.

    2. b.

      No.

    3. c.

      I do not know.

If yes, please explain general findings and provide report citations.

If no, is any such research being considered or planned for the future?

  1. a.

    Yes.

  2. b.

    No.

  3. c.

    I do not know.

If yes, please briefly explain scope/type of planned study, projected date, stage of project, targeted species, etc.

If no, please rank your agency’s reasons for not studying the effects of median barriers on wildlife movement and/or mortality (1 = Highest, 5 = Lowest).

  1. a.

    Too expensive.

  2. b.

    Too time consuming.

  3. c.

    No specialized personnel to conduct study.

  4. d.

    No mandate to conduct such research (no species which are endangered, threatened or of special concern).

  5. e.

    No perceived need to conduct such research.

  6. f.

    If there are other reasons not listed above, please describe.

  7. 4.

    Have any unforeseen negative impacts resulted from different types of median barrier installations by your agency/state/province? Please select all that apply. [select: (i) Concrete Jersey/F-slope, (ii) concrete constant-slope Texas, (iii) steel/thrie-beam, (iv) cable, (v) centerline rumble strips, (vi) grassy median].

    1. a.

      Increased in fixed object (median barrier) collisions.

    2. b.

      Increase in re-directional collisions.

    3. c.

      Increase in motorist fatalities.

    4. d.

      Increase in motorist injuries.

    5. e.

      Increase in motorist injury severity.

    6. f.

      Increase in general maintenance costs.

    7. g.

      Increase in weather-related maintenance costs or challenges.

    8. h.

      Decrease in emergency service and/or law enforcement accessibility.

    9. i.

      Increase in wildlife mortality.

    10. j.

      Decrease in wildlife mobility across the roadway.

Mitigation for wildlife

  1. 1.

    What species (deer, bears, etc.) or groupings (small mammals, reptiles/amphibians, etc.) of wildlife appear to be most affected by roadways with raised median barriers in your jurisdiction?

  2. 2.

    How frequently does your agency/state/province consider mitigative design solutions to median barrier impacts on wildlife movement and/or mortality? (e.g., spacing of barriers, scuppers, passages, etc.).

    1. a.

      Always,

    2. b.

      Usually,

    3. c.

      Sometimes,

    4. d.

      Rarely,

    5. e.

      Never,

    6. f.

      Not applicable.

  3. 3.

    How frequently does your agency/state/province employ mitigative design solutions to median barrier impacts on wildlife movement and/or mortality?

    1. a.

      Always,

    2. b.

      Usually,

    3. c.

      Sometimes,

    4. d.

      Rarely,

    5. e.

      Never,

    6. f.

      Not applicable.

Implications for transportation planning

  1. 1.

    Has your agency encountered any practical or regulatory issues regarding the use of median barriers in your state/province?

    1. a.

      Yes.

    2. b.

      No.

    3. c.

      I do not know.

  2. 2.

    Does your agency know of any practical or regulatory issues regarding the use of median barriers across states/provinces/the country?

    1. a.

      Yes.

    2. b.

      No.

    3. c.

      I do not know.

If yes, are these issues related to: (a) Motorist safety? (b) Wildlife movement and/or mortality?

  1. a.

    Yes.

  2. b.

    No.

  3. c.

    I do not know.

Please explain.

  1. 3.

    Is your agency planning any changes in its approach to using median barriers? (e.g., type of barrier, placement, etc.).

  2. 4.

    What suggestions or comments do you have regarding median barriers, motorist safety and wildlife movement and/or mortality that might not have been addressed in this survey?

  3. 5.

    If you would like to receive a report of the survey results, please check here.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Clevenger, A.P., Kociolek, A.V. Potential Impacts of Highway Median Barriers on Wildlife: State of the Practice and Gap Analysis. Environmental Management 52, 1299–1312 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0155-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0155-0

Keywords