The Georgia Initiative GDOT/GUCC Clear Roadside Program.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
CE 436/536 – ROADWAY DESIGN January 22, 2008 Review Homework Assignment Did any of our discussion from last week make you notice anything different about.
Advertisements

Design Speed and Target Speed Norman W. Garrick Lecture 2.2 Street and Highway Design Norman W. Garrick Lecture 2.2 Street and Highway Design.
Chapter 3: Elements of Design Transition Design Controls (p
Statewide Traffic Engineers Meeting Rumble Strip(e) June 16, 2011 Simone Ardoin Assistant Road Design Engineer Administrator.
Lec 33, Ch.5, pp : Accident reduction capabilities and effectiveness of safety design features (Objectives) Learn what’s involved in safety engineering.
TRAILS AS TRANSPORTATION Design & Construction Michael J. Kubek, P.E. Ohio Department of Transportation, District 12 Production Administrator.
Improving our Partnership (A Branch Guide to the New MOU)
US Highway 17 (Center Street) Sidewalk Feasibility Study Town of Pierson, Florida.
Florida Department of Transportation, November 2009
Intersections & Right of Way
HERO UNIT Training Module Work Zone Traffic Control And Incident Management Operations.
U.S. 31 at CR 400 South Roundabout Information Meeting December 18, 2013 Clifty Creek Elementary Columbus, Indiana.
I-295 / I-76 / NJ 42 Incident Management Task Force in New Jersey
3R Standards Resurfacing, Restoration, & Rehabilitation Ch. 7 1.
Incorporating Safety into the Highway Design Process.
Lec 14, Ch.8, pp : Intersection control and warrants (objectives) Know the purpose of traffic control Know what MUTCD is and what’s in it Know what.
Detours – Selection and Design Highways & Engineering Conference March 2, 2006.
Workshop Presentation for Canyon County Jurisdictions for Canyon County Jurisdictions Corridor Management Plan.
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users SAFETEA-LU Key Safety Provisions Federal Highway Administration.
COMMERCIAL DRIVERS LICENSE
Fleet Safety. Introduction: Why Address Fleet Accidents Frequency of Fleet Accidents (NSC) 22% of workplace fatalities were highway accidents 80-90% were.
Share & Be Aware Driver’s Education Class. Brought to You By:
Rules and Regulations for Safe Driving
. Efforts to Reduce Crashes on County Roads in Iowa.
MODULE 3 THE HAZARDS OF DRIVING.
Scene Safety – Apparatus Positioning at Roadway Incidents Procedure: –4.1 Safety Premises Emergency personnel are at great risk while operating.
Section 2 (Day 5) Virginia Driver Responsibilities: Preparing to Operate a Vehicle.
1 Development of countermeasures Hossein Naraghi CE 590 Special Topics Safety March 2003 Time Spent: 6 hrs.
1-1 LOW COST SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS Practitioner Workshop Introduction – Session #1.
Kern Motorist Aid Authority Services And Operations.
Capital Improvement Program. During the Annual Strategic Action Plan (SAP) evaluation, long-term needs and priorities are identified by City Council Capital.
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 26 Schedule.
1 Chapter 3: Elements of Design Sight Distances (p.3-1 to 3-18 ) Be able to define and use the stopping sight distance equation Be able to explain the.
SAFE DRIVING RULES AND REGUALTIONS
Jay Smith Terri Parker Counsel for MHTC Current Legal Issues.
Share & Be Aware Driver’s Education Class. Brought to You By:
Working Together to Save Lives An Introduction to the FHWA Safety Program for FHWA’s Safety Partners.
Incorporating Safety into Design CE 453 – Highway Design October 2, 2006 Jerry Roche, P.E. Transportation Safety Engineer FHWA – Iowa Division Federal.
Task Force on Safe Teen Driving Joint Transportation Committee January 10, 2013.
Data Palooza Workshop May 9, 2013 Rabinder Bains, FHWA – Office of Policy and Government Affairs.
Clear Zone Conflicts in AASHTO Publications Dick Albin Washington State Department of Transportation Presented at the AASHTO Subcommittee on Design Meeting.
Quality Avenue “Safe Streets” Improvements City of Lakeland, Minnesota Paul Pinkston Hamline University August 18, 2015.
County of Fairfax, Virginia Department of Transportation 1 Requirements for Pedestrian Improvements on Road Projects in the Board’s Six Year Priority Plan.
Presentation Outline  Recommendation  Project Background  Public Involvement  Proposed Design  Citizen Comments/Questions  Summary and Recommendation.
NC Local Safety Partnership Selecting Interventions.
Design Speed and Target Speed Norman W. Garrick Lecture 3.1 Street and Highway Design Norman W. Garrick Lecture 3.1 Street and Highway Design.
Putting Together a Safety Program Kevin J. Haas, P.E.—Traffic Investigations Engineer Oregon Department of Transportation Traffic—Roadway Section (Salem,
North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) In Highway Scene Management.
5/8/02FHWA Office of Safety1 FHWA Safety Core Business Unit Office-Level Structure Develops and manages programs for the safe operation of roadways, bicycle.
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users Advancing Safety through SAFETEA-LU Michael Halladay FHWA Office of.
Geometric Design: General Concept CE331 Transportation Engineering.
Edward L. Fischer P.E..  Ed, it was hard to read slides from back of room with this background.  Can I change it? Nancy Brickman.
SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (HSIP) GRANTS Presented By: Patrick V. DeChellis Deputy Director Los Angeles County Department.
Safety Data Initiatives in Reauthorization – What Can We Expect? Kathy Krause, FHWA Office of Safety 30 th Annual International Traffic Records Forum July.
Complete Streets Training Module 10 – Street Elements: Design & Safety Considerations for Context-Based Solutions.
Estimation of 2001 Crash Costs Using FARS and GES John McFadden, Len Meczkowski, FHWA-Office of Safety R&D; Carol Conly, Lendis Corporation; Promod Chandhok,
Driver Education Rural Driving 82% of all miles in the U.S. are Rural Roads. Collisions in rural areas are equal to 2 x as many highway deaths as in.
Community Development Department Dimensional Variance In Connection with The Agreement to Convey Property – City Initiated Application # Palm.
Role of Safety Performance Functions in the Highway Safety Manual July 29, 2009.
Connecting South Dakota and the Nation Access Management Training Brooke White, Access Management Engineer.
FHWA: Revision of Thirteen Controlling Criteria for Design; Notice for Request and Comment. Comments Due: December 7, 2015 Jeremy Fletcher, P.E., P.S.M.
LOW COST SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS Practitioner Workshop The Tools – Identification of High Crash Locations – Session #2.
2040 LONG RANGE PLAN UPDATE Congestion Management Process Plan (CMPP) Major Update February 24, 2016.
Presented to presented by Alabama Department of Transportation April 8, 2016 The Alabama Transportation Planner’s Guide to Safety Data Access and Documentation.
INDOT Office of Traffic Safety Manager, Mike Holowaty
Caldwell and Wilson (1999) 1. Determine primary rating factor for a road section based on traffic volume and user types 2. Primary rating factor is then.
Design Speed and Target Speed
Design Speed and Target Speed
Technical Committee on Geometric Design
State Aid Standards Development
Presentation transcript:

The Georgia Initiative GDOT/GUCC Clear Roadside Program

Clear Roadside Tom Jackson Vice President

Purpose of Presentation To Heighten the awareness of the importance of proper pole (and other utility structures) placements on or adjacent to public right-of- way.

What more can be Done? Over 40 fatal crashes in 1997 –Where did these happen? –Why did these happen?

Fatal crash review >Examine the crashes closer >Determine actual pole location >Estimate influencing factors > Can these factors be changed?

43 Fatal Crashes in 1997 Sequence of events from: –GDOT Database information –Police report –Field Inspection –Pictures

Utility Pole Fatal Crashes

Typical Utility Pole Crash Majority involve : –Alcohol/Drugs –Lack of SeatBelt Use –Male Drivers –35-45 mph Roads –Metropolitan Areas

Pole Locations Comparisons Curbed –88% met 1.5’ dist. –25% met CRC Non-curbed –33% met AASHTO Curbed –83% met 1.5’ dist. –42% met CRC Non-curbed –52% met AASHTO

Crossover

Pole Locations Comparisons Curbed-38% CO –50% met CRC Non-curbed-56% CO –59% met AASHTO Curbed - 33% CO –50% met CRC Non-curbed- 36% CO –78% met AASHTO

Georgia Experience Curbed Roadways recognized Effect over time (30 years) Apparent benefits already realized …More Work to be Done!!

GUCC Clear Roadside Committee (CRC) CRC Policy: –guidelines for curbed roadways –30 year relocation & mitigation plan

Curbed Roadways 12 ft desirable 6 ft minimum at 35 mph or less 8 ft minimum for >35 and <45 mph

Relocation Plan Crash history –3 year timeframe –3 mile stretches of road State & US Routes

Give and Take Move certain number of poles each year Developed variance policy for joint-use situations

Georgia Power Program Committed to relocate 179 poles per year. Total includes poles relocated on DOT projects that did not meet clear roadside. Continuation of program started in 1979

Georgia Power Agreed to Goal is to have all poles meet clear roadside in 30 years. Relocate poles hit by a vehicle when possible. DOT to provide accident information.

DOT Agreed Not require relocation of poles when only adding facilities or reconducting only. Allow for replacement of poles in same location for maintenance.

Sections with Most Utility Pole Crashes to 1997 data

Crash history Reduction in observed crashes More extensive before-after study needed

Crash Rates Crash/AADT Observed Reduction in crash rate

Stewart Avenue/ Metropolitan Parkway

What can we do? Design jobs to meet clear roadside design Review accidents to see if we can avoid future occurrences Be aware of poles placed in apex of curves

Review Jobs to Ensure Replacement of existing poles meet clear roadside where possible. Accidents involving fatalities are investigated to determine if pole can be relocated.

New Program Georgia DOT

Clear Roadside Committee Mission Statement A committee formed to develop a comprehensive clear roadside safety program that will improve the safe and efficient use of highway rights of way for the traveling public in the State of Georgia. Once developed, the committee will communicate the benefits of the program to all utilities statewide and strive for participation by all utilities that occupy highway rights of way.

What Are We Attempting to Achieve Guidelines for pole placement on rural and urban shoulders Reducing facilities and injuries by joint efforts between Utilities and GDOT Bring attention to site specific safety considerations

What do the Feds think? FHA Program Guide: Utility Relocation and Accommodation on Federal-Aid Highway Projects, Sixth Edition, Section (k): The highway agency shall initiate corrective measures. The intent for each State to work with pole owners. Systematically remove, relocate, or mitigate hazardously located utility poles.

Why is it Needed. Over 3 million utility poles statewide On average of 50 deaths and approx injuries each year

Pole Accident Rates

Why is it Needed. Over 3 million utility poles statewide On average of 50 deaths and approx injuries each year Georgia ranks 13 th in Pole Fatality Accidents

Accidents Information will be sent to the pole owner for their review

Permitting (New Facilities) All new facilities (in rural areas) will follow the Roadside Design Guide, current edition, published by AASHTO as a guide in determining current clear roadside requirements. Curb Section - Where there are curbed sections the utilities are to be located as far as practical behind the back of curb. The following is the minimum lateral clearances based on the respective posted speed limits: Minimum Lateral ClearancePosted Speed Limit (mph) 12’ 45 8’ 35 to 40 6’ 0 to 30 The lateral clearance is measured from the back of curb to the face of pole. However, in all of the above cases, the facility shall not encroach upon current ADA sidewalk clearances.

Proactive Efforts The DOT would assist in funding for the relocations of poles $5,000,000 of safety funds 50% assistance

Accidents involving pole fatalities will be sent to the pole owner for his review. If the pole was the determining factor, the poles in the area in question will be addressed immediately. Major rehab projects where 33% of poles are being replaced or added the pole owner will be required to relocate all the poles in the permit request to current clear roadside requirements. Where accident data for a pole line shows an average of 1 accident per mile per year for the last 3 years (with none being a fatality), and where the pole location doesn’t meet clear roadside requirements; the pole owner will be required to relocate that section of line or use approved mitigation methods. All new facilities will be required to meet current clear roadside requirements shown in the DOT Accommodation Manual. Proactive effort by the participating utilities to address high accident location in their service area. The DOT would assist in funding relocations of poles based on accident when safety funds are available.

Current Schedule First Project - CSSTP (072) has currently been identified GDOT working on Guidelines and Agreements Utilities working on cost estimates (starting October) Project set for January 2005

Future Planning Try to always set back during maintenance activities Look at the type and number of poles utilized Location, Location, Location

Site Specific Safety Considerations Curves “T” Intersections Lane Drops or Deceleration Lanes Intersecting Streets Kinks in Alignment Driveways or Alleys

Curves

“T” Intersections

Lane Drops or

Deceleration Lanes

Intersecting Streets

Kinks in Alignment

Driveways or Alleys

The pole usually wins

Questions?