Utility Poles

Index of Strategies by Implementation Timeframe and Relative Cost

Exhibit IV-1 provides a classification of strategies according to the expected timeframe and relative cost for this emphasis area. In several cases, the implementation time will depend on such factors as the agency's procedures, the need for additional right-of-way (ROW), and the need to follow environmental impact processes. The range of costs also may vary for some of these strategies because of many of the same factors. Placement in the exhibit is meant to reflect the most commonly expected application of the strategy.

Exhibit IV-1
Classification of Strategies

Time Frame for Implementation	Relative Cost to Implement and Operate
Time Frame for Implementation	Low	Moderate	Moderate to High	High
Short (less than a year)	16.2 A1 Remove poles in high-crash locations^a 16.2 A2 Relocate poles in high-crash locations farther from the roadway and/or to less vulnerable locations^a 16.2 A4 Shield drivers from poles in high-crash locations 16.2 A5 Improve the drivers' ability to see poles in high-crash locations	——	——	——
Medium (1-2 years)	16.2 B1 Develop, revise, and implement policies to prevent placing or replacing poles within the clear zone^b	16.2 A6 Apply traffic calming measures to reduce speeds on high-risk sections	16.2 A3 Use breakaway devices 16.2 C3 Decrease the number of poles along the corridor^c	16.2 C2 Relocate poles along the corridor farther from the roadway and/or to less vulnerable locations^c
Long (more than 2 years)	——	——	——	16.2 C1 Place utilities underground^c

^aPlacement here is based upon the assumption that this will be for application to individual poles with a history of hazard.
^bThe development of policies will be a relatively low-cost effort, but the potential results of the new policies could require fairly significant resources and time to implement.
^cPlacement here is based upon the assumption that this will be for application along corridors, involving a large number of poles.