X-LITE End
Terminal

1. Does the State
2. If yes,
3. Does the State DOT have any additional information to share with us
DOT use Linday's X- approximately how
about the Lindsay X-LITE
LITE end terminal many devices are
system?
currently deployed
in the state?

Alaska
Alabama
Arizona

Yes
No
Yes

0
N/A
0

No
No
ADOT has received feedback from contractors that the X-LITE has
constructability challenges which is why they are not selecting the
product. ADOT is also moving to remove from APL.

Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut

No
Yes
Yes
Yes

N/A
297
300
12

Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida

No
No
Yes

N/A
N/A
45

No
No
No
No crash history. This device has only been on CTDOT’s Qualified
Products List (QPL) since September 2015.
No
No
One X-Lite guardrail terminal in the Jacksonville area has been involved in a
property damage only incident. The photos are attached.

Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois

Yes
No
Yes
No

300
N/A
0
N/A

No longer on QPL
No
No, on QPL but none used so far
The state has the X-Tension on its Qualified Products List. They would like
to know how the findings with the X-Lite will affect the eligibility of the XTension. We understand that the X-Lite was based on the X-Tension with
some modifications.

Indiana
Iowa
Kansas

No
No
Yes

N/A
N/A
39

No
No
Have not experienced any concerns with performance of this end terminal

Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine

No
Yes
Yes

N/A
31
30

No
No
Currently gathering information on the X-LITE issue and will be making
recommendations on future usuage to chief engineer.

Maryland
Massachusetts

Yes
Yes

1635
2600

No
As MassDOT is part of the FHWA in-service performance evaluation (IPSEGETS), data on x-lite crashes have been provided to the team. Please
refer to them. In terms of our experience here in Massachusetts and with
MassDOT installations, we are not aware of any issues with the
performance of the X-Lite terminal ends. This product, like the other
terminal ends on the market have shown to provide a level of roadside safety
that can be expected under a reasonable crash condition. Like any roadside
safety hardware, devices are tested under conditions set forth by the NCHRP
350 crash testing procedures and actual in-service crash results may not
always replicate what was shown under standard conditions

Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska

Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes

85
10
N/A
400
N/A
4

No
Not aware of any hits on the installations on the state highways
No
Lindsay X-Lite is not on MODOT’s Qualified Products Listing.
No
Nebraska Dept. of Roads uses the X-lite only as a 4’ offset end treatment

Nevada

No

N/A

No

% of Xlite in
State
0.00%
N/A

0.00%
N/A
2.02%
2.04%
0.08%
N/A
N/A

0.31%
2.04%
N/A
0.00%

N/A
N/A
N/A
0.27%
N/A
0.21%

0.20%
11.13%

17.70%
0.58%
0.07%
N/A
2.72%
N/A
0.03%
N/A

 New Hampshire

Yes

111

No, we do not have any in-service assessment on this system. Several
systems have been damaged over the course of the winter but we are not
aware of any issues with serious injury events. We are currently reviewing
this special provision for 606 to move toward MASH terminals. I expect that
we will be instituting the higher performing MASH terminals in contracts
that advertise early this summer (June). At this time we have no wholesale
action to replace any X-Lite systems. I do suspect, we will get some
guidance from the Commissioner’s Office on current construction projects
where this terminals is the contractor’s choice and where they have not yet
been installed. If so, this will likely result in possible change order with the
contractor to replace X-Lite. My recommendation would be to seek
replacement for X-Lite terminals on Tier I and II roadways having posted
speed of 45 mph or higher. I plan on meeting next Monday with
Commissioners to discuss our next action plan for MASH compliance prior
to the FHWA/AASHTO Implementation Agreement and this includes the
terminals.The two systems that will be listed are Trinity SoftStop and Barrier
Systems MSKT, both with eligibility letters from FHWA Safety Office. We
await the issuance of the eligibility letter for the Lindsay MAX-Tension I.
Once the FHWA letter is issued, this new system will be added to Section
660 spec.

New Jersey

Yes

10

Ryan Samak, North Regional Manager of Lindsay, has informed the NJDOT
that Lindsay inspected existing X-LITES for Tennessee DOT for 2 weeks
and found that a majority of them had installation issues such as incorrect
height (one was 40 “ high), grading, and location of shear and splice bolts.
The installation manual states that shear bolted should be hand tightened ,
then tighten a quarter turn. They are designed to break when hit. If you
tighten them too much, they will break, then you need to replace it and
tighten it correctly the next time. Lindsay Transportation Solutions will not
be crash testing this system to MASH.

New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio

No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes

N/A
24
1000
N/A
2

No
No
No
No
The two locations have not been impacted by a vehicle and required no
maintenance. The two installations are NCHRP 350, Ohio DOT is now
focused on MASH tested hardware

Oklahoma
Oregon

Yes
Yes

3
0

Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico

Yes
Yes

535
15

X-Lite is on ODOT QPL as “Conditional Approval”
While the X-LITE system was on the QPL it has since been removed so that
no installations are currently allowed
No known performance issues
Only installed on P3 concessionary (Metropistas) two toll roads

Rhode Island

Yes

50

RIDOT started seeing shop drawings/submittals come in with this brand in
late 2014. There have been some concern from our Construction repair
personnel to their quality, compared to other approved devices.

South Carolina

Yes

500

Lindsay participated in a Guardrail workshop conducted in late 2016 and
also provided installation training in each of the SCDOT Districts.

South Dakota
Tennesee

No
Yes

N/A
1800

No
TDOT removed this terminal from the QPL on October 25, 2016. All X-Lite
terminals on roadways 45 mph or greater will be removed and replaced
with a MASH TL-3 terminal by Summer 2018.

Texas

Yes

1150

TxDOT is aware of the questions raised pertaining to the X-LITE system;
and is in the process of gathering and assessing information on the XLITE system.

Utah

No

N/A

No

0.76%

0.07%
N/A
0.16%
6.81%
N/A

0.01%
0.02%
0.00%
3.64%
0.10%

0.34%

3.40%
N/A

12.25%

7.83%
N/A

 Vermont

Yes

5

The 5 installations were all installed on a single project to afford VTrans’
Maintenance and Operations Bureau (MOB) the opportunity to evaluate
them from a maintenance standpoint (ease of installation). The MOB
recommended to the Guardrail Committee that they were an acceptable
option and the Guardrail Committee in turn recommended they be added to
the APL, which they were in early 2016. It was determined that neither the
MOB or the Construction section have verified any further installations after
the original 5. None of these end sections have been involved in crash as of
the date of this response

Virginia
Washington
West Virginia

Yes
No
Yes

1000
N/A
2700

Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total "Yes"
Total "No"
Total Missing

No
No
33
19
0

N/A
N/A
14693

on APL from Sept 2013 to Sept 2016
No
We are reviewing in-service performance within WV as well as other states’
experiences.
No
No
locations

0.03%
6.81%
N/A
18.38%
N/A
N/A

 DA