Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

PIARC T.C. C2.1 & C2.3 Comparison of National Road Safety Policies & Plans Crash Analysis/Problem Definition & Time of Return Methodology October 2008.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "PIARC T.C. C2.1 & C2.3 Comparison of National Road Safety Policies & Plans Crash Analysis/Problem Definition & Time of Return Methodology October 2008."— Presentation transcript:

1 PIARC T.C. C2.1 & C2.3 Comparison of National Road Safety Policies & Plans Crash Analysis/Problem Definition & Time of Return Methodology October 2008 Larry E. Tibbits Michigan Department of Transportation Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

2 Crash Information in Michigan to Define Problems Areas

3 Crash Incident Documentation/ Processing Crash report is completed by Law Enforcement Officer All crashes involving injuries, and most property damage crashes must be reported Statewide standard crash report form (next slides) Paper and electronic version of crash report form All reports processed by Michigan State Police All reported crashes are located on linear and GIS based referencing systems

4 Michigan Crash Report Form (front)

5 Michigan Crash Report Form (back)

6 Crash Processing Scan the form and create electronic image Use intelligent character recognition of written information Validate text data Attach location information Post crash data to crash data warehouse

7 Safety Analysis to Define Problem Areas Michigan Strategic Highway Safety Plan – data driven identification of 12 safety focus areas Identification of Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Medical Services treatments Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Identify high crash locations for treatment 5% Report – worst 5% of locations statewide Post safety treatment evaluations Call for Safety Projects

8 Safety Analysis to Define Problem Areas Of the 12 SHSP focus areas, three are predominately addressed by the HSIP: Intersection safety Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Lane Departure

9 Safety Analysis to Define Problem Areas These locations are identified through: High crash list 5% Report Fatality and serious Region wide maps Project Required Safety Reviews Customer concerns Pavement friction analyses

10 Call for Projects Safety Projects FY 2011 RegionNumber of Fatalities and Serious Injuries (2004-2006) Percentage of Fatalities and Serious Injuries (2004-2006) FY 2011 SafetyTarget Superior 8207.12%$1.00 M North 1,17210.18%$1.50 M Grand 1,62814.14%$1.95 M Bay 1,46312.70%$2.04 M Southwest 1,42612.38%$1.82 M University 1,76615.33%$2.60 M Metro 3,24228.15%$4.69 M Discretionary $2.00 M SWA $1.40 M Totals11,517 100%$19.00 M

11 Time of Return (TOR) It is one type of cost benefit tool Estimates benefits (reducing crashes/injuries/deaths) Output: the number of years required to recover the safety investment Based upon Roy Jorgensen’s report on Highway Safety Improvement Criteria

12 Why Use TOR Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program requires that we invest safety dollars where they are needed most – where we get the greatest return Helps prioritize competing safety projects Verifies how the safety fix matches the demonstrated safety problem

13 Crash Data used in TOR Crash type Number of crashes Property damage only + minor injury (B, C) Number of A injuries or number killed (people) Each incident is one crash

14 TOR Components Estimated costs of deaths and injuries from U.S. National Safety Council (http://www.nsc.org/) Estimated benefits resulting from reducing crashes Traffic volumes Reduction in fatalities and A injuries combined Reduction in minor (no A injuries or fatalities) crashes

15 TOR Components Q factor to blend the impact of fatalities and A injuries Estimated project costs Number of years of crash data used (3-5) Area Factor - Urban, rural, and between

16 The Calculation Roy Jorgensen's Formula BTOTAL = ADTa/ADTbx/ (QxR1+(PDOCOSTxR2)) BTOTAL = Total benefit in dollars over years used ADTa = Average traffic volume after the improvement (assumed) ADTb = Average traffic volume before the improvement

17 The Calculation (Continued) R1 = Reduction in fatalities and A- injuries combined R2 = Reduction in minor (no A- injuries or fatalities) crashes Q = [FATCOST+((I/FxINJCOST]/1+(I/F]

18 Summary Michigan a has sound crash records system in place Crash data, along with other safety data allow for problem identification, selection of treatments, and evaluation of implemented safety treatments Crash data is essential to Michigan identifying strategic highway safety goals and monitoring safety performance http://www.michigan.gov/tands