1. A Systemic Approach to Safety Management NLTAPA Annual Conference July 30, 2012 Hillary Isebrands, P.E., PhD

2. Welcome and Introductions 2

3. Overview Introduction to the systemic approach to safety Explain how it can be applied in local jurisdictions Illustrate how the systemic approach can be used through state and local case studies Describe how to advance the systemic approach to safety in your state 3

4. What we mean by “systemic safety improvement” An improvement that is widely implemented based on high-risk roadway features that are correlated with particular severe crash types. The systemic approach is intended to complement the traditional site analysis approach (i.e. high crash locations) resulting in a comprehensive safety management program. 4

5. What we mean by “risk” The potential for a specific type of severe crash to occur at a specific location because of the location’s characteristics or features. 5

6. What we mean by “risk factor” A representation of risk in terms of the observed characteristics associated with the locations where the targeted crash types occurred Volume Alignment Intersection control Presence of shoulders 6

7. Potential Risk Factors Roadway Features Number of lanes Lane width Shoulder surface width/type Median width/type Horizontal curvature Roadside or edge hazard rating Driveway density Presence of shoulder or centerline rumble strips Presence of lighting Presence of on-street parking Roadway Features Number of lanes Lane width Shoulder surface width/type Median width/type Horizontal curvature Roadside or edge hazard rating Driveway density Presence of shoulder or centerline rumble strips Presence of lighting Presence of on-street parking Intersection Features Intersection skew angle Intersection traffic control device Number of signal heads vs. number of lanes Presence of backplates Presence of advanced warning signs Intersection located in/near horizontal curve Presence of left-turn or right-turn lanes Left-turn phasing Allowance of right-turn-on-red Intersection Features Intersection skew angle Intersection traffic control device Number of signal heads vs. number of lanes Presence of backplates Presence of advanced warning signs Intersection located in/near horizontal curve Presence of left-turn or right-turn lanes Left-turn phasing Allowance of right-turn-on-red Pedestrian-related Features Crosswalk presence Crossing distance Signal head type Adjacent land uses Lighting Pedestrian-related Features Crosswalk presence Crossing distance Signal head type Adjacent land uses Lighting

8. Limitations to the Site Analysis Approach 57% of fatal crashes on rural roads Substantial number of fatal crashes on local roads Low density on rural and local roadways 8

10. Fatal crash types 1-10 20052007 2006 2008

11. Factors Influencing Approach Data availability Resources Established priorities State/local agency relationship 11 Overview

12. Outcomes of Systemic Safety Planning Candidate locations for safety investment are identified and prioritized using selected risk factors Selected countermeasures for candidate locations are efficiently bundled into projects and design packages for contract letting Effective, low cost countermeasures are applied at the candidate locations to reduce the potential for focus crash types to occur 12 Overview

13. Comprehensive Safety Program Hot spot safety planning focuses on locations with a history of high crash frequency System-based safety planning: – Is a complementary analytical technique intended to supplement the high crash frequency technique to be more comprehensive and proactive – Begins with identifying a “problem” based on statewide (or agency-wide) data – Focuses on one or more low-cost strategies to address the underlying contributing circumstances – Identifies and prioritizes locations for implementation based on high risk features – Acknowledges crashes alone are not always sufficient to establish prioritization Overview 13

14. Benefits of Systemic Safety Planning Proactive program to address fatalities and serious injuries that seemingly occurred at “random” locations Greater knowledge regarding severe crashes, including contributing factors and location characteristics – Improve planning, design, and maintenance practices – Risk management for tort liability 14 Overview

15. Challenges to the Systemic Approach Overcoming institutional history Safety funding Training/retraining staff to use new methods and procedures Accessing information to support identification of crash risk factors 15

16. Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool Step-by-step process to conduct systemic safety analysis and planning Method for balancing systemic safety improvements and spot safety improvements Mechanism to quantify benefits of systemic safety improvements 16

17. 17 Cyclical Planning Process Element 1 Element 2 Element 3

18. Identify Target Crash Types & Risk Factors Analyze system-wide crash data Define crash characteristics at the system level Identify potential risk factors from characteristics – Roadway and intersection features – Traffic volume – Other i.e. transit stops, land use 18 Select focus crash type(s) Select focus facilities Identify common characteristics

19. Screen & Prioritize Candidate Locations Identify network elements analyzed Verify selected risk factors Conduct risk assessment Prioritize roadway facilities – Segments – Horizontal curves – Intersections 19

20. Identifying Systemic Countermeasures Initial list of strategies – Low cost – Significant crash reduction 20

21. Assemble initial list – Low cost – Significant crash reduction Evaluate & Screen – Effectiveness – Implementation costs – Policies/practices/ experiences 21 Select a few countermeasures for each target crash type Select Countermeasures

22. FHWA Proven Countermeasures http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures

23. Prioritize Projects Create a decision process – Provides consistency in project development process – Consider multiple locations for which countermeasures are appropriate and affordable Develop safety projects – Apply decision process – Develop specific projects for each candidate site – Document decision process and results 23

24. Identify Funding & Implement Systemic Program Guidance for a decision-making process – Not a prescriptive formula Options to select funding levels for: – Systemic & site analysis – State system & local system – Segment & intersection projects 24

25. Perform Systemic Program Evaluation Structured approach for tracking changes in crashes and defining benefits – Illustrations for presentations to elected/citizens – Economic for B/C calculations Program evaluation; not location evaluations Guidance for interpreting results – Identify if adjustments are needed 25

26. 26 Element 1: 4-Step Project Selection Process

27. 27

28. Review Past Funding Practices What safety countermeasures were implemented and where – at what locations and on what system? What crash types were targeted by these particular countermeasures? Were these crash types and mitigation strategies identified as a priority in your Safety Plan? 28

29. 5 Year Crashes - 6,677 Funding – $155,946,000 State System - 3,888 – 58% $82,652,000 $155,291,000 - >99% Rural - 2,998 – 77% $63,642,000 $98,418,000 – 63% Urban - 890 – 23% $19,010,000 $56,159,000 – 36% Inters-Related - 667 – 22% $14,001,240 $11,682,000 – 12% Inters-Related - 346– 39% $7,414,000 $18,495,000 – 33% Not Inters-Related - 544 – 61% $11,596,100 $37,664,000 – 67% Not Inters-Related - 2,331 – 78% $49,640,760 $86,735,000 – 88% Signals – $10,913,000 – 59% Intersection ? – $5,177,000 – 28% Other – $2,404,000 – 13% Signal – $3,580,000 – 31% Intersection ? – $1,531,000 – 13% Other – $6,571,000 – 56% Crashes Projected Funding Actual Funding Road Edge – $23,156,000 – 27% Barrier – $25,085,000 – 29% Other – $31,691,000 – 37% Segment Improve. – $6,802,000 – 8% Road Edge – $3,419,000 – 9% Barrier – $15,954,000 – 42% Other – $5,260,000 – 14% Segment Improve. – $12,955,00 – 34% Ped Features – $75,000 – >0% 9% Funded – Run Off Road – 40% Crashes 42% Funded – Head On – 12% Crashes 14% Funded – Other – 26% Crashes 34% Funded – Rear End – 11% Crashes >0% Funded – Pedestrian – 11% Crashes 27% Funded – Run Off Road – 61% Crashes 29% Funded – Head On – 9% Crashes 37% Funded – Other – 22% Crashes 8% Funded – Rear End – 8% Crashes Example: State Crash/Funding Comparison by Urban vs. Rural 29 C. Project Type vs. Crash Type -Signals and Head On are generally over funded. -Run Off Road are underfunded. 59% Funded – Angle, Left Turn – 52% Crashes 28% Funded – Angle, Left Turn, Rear End – 57% Crashes 13% Funded – Other – 43% Crashes 31% Funded – Angle, Left Turn – 54% 13% Funded – Angle, Left Turn, Read End – 59% Crashes 56% Funded – Other – 41% Crashes B. Urban vs. Rural -Rural state system is under funded; 77% of crashes, 63% of funding. A. State vs. Local -The state system accounts for 58% of rashes, receives over 99% of the funding Element 2: Review Past Funding Practices

30. Local Case Studies Washington State Kentucky Indiana Louisiana 30

31. Thurston County, WA FHWA Pilot Current Approach – Black Spots – Guardrail program – Shoulder widening program – Low Cost Safety Improvements – Sign Maintenance 31

32. Thurston County, WA Using crash data Non-Junction related – Run of the Road Horizontal curves – Speed Limit – Shoulder width – AADT < 5,000 – Fixed Object Struck 32

33. Thurston County, WA Horizontal Curve Risk Factors – Shoulder width – Radius – Speed differential – AADT – Roadside Hazard Rating – Crashes – Intersections 33

34. Kentucky Focus Counties – 5 years of crash data – Select routes for RSA’s The systemic approach would focus on our crash types – Drop offs, edgelines, horizontal curve signage, tree removal, vegetation management and delineation for the entire route – KYTC is working on a program to make HRRR funds available to Counties for horizontal alignment signage 40% of crashes occur in curves 20% of our fatalities occur in curves 34

35. Indiana Sign replacement (HSIP funding) – Crash reduction factors – Replace all signs Evaluation 7-16% reduction in crashes in one county Past Intersection Focus State – Package treatments 35

36. Intersection Safety Implementation Plans (ISIP) Began in 2006 as a component of the Focus State initiative Focuses on systematic deployment of packages of low- cost countermeasures (e.g. signing, markings, etc.) across numerous locations 36

37. Example Unsignalized Treatment Package 37 Estimated Crash Reduction 30% Average cost $6,000/site Key to safety effectiveness is widespread deployment

38. Questions??? Karen Y. Scurry, P.E. 609-637-4207 karen.scurry@dot.gov http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov 38 Hillary Isebrands, PE, PhD 720-963-3222 hillary.isebrands@dot.gov