DISTRICT PILOT PROJECT PRESENTATION MAY 2, 2011 1 Highway Safety Manual Implementation.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Worked Example: Highway Safety Modeling. Outline –Safety Modeling »Safety Modeling Process –Set-up for Worked Example –Develop / Build Safety Model »Project.
Advertisements

Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM)
Safety Conversation: NLTAPA Conference Michael S. Griffith Director Office of Safety Technologies Federal Highway Administration.
1 Element 1: The Systemic Safety Project Selection Process Element 1: 4-Step Project Selection Process.
HSM: Celebrating 5 Years Together Brian Ray, PE Casey Bergh, PE.
Lec 33, Ch.5, pp : Accident reduction capabilities and effectiveness of safety design features (Objectives) Learn what’s involved in safety engineering.
HSM Practitioner’s Guide for Two-Lane Rural Highways Workshop
Are They Sick? Evaluating Corridors from a Safety Health Perspective Bill Loudon and Bob Schulte, DKS Associates Prepared by IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.
Recently Developed Intersection CMFs Nancy Lefler, VHB ATSIP Traffic Records Forum, 2014.
HSM Practitioner’s Guider for Two-Lane Rural Highways Workshop Exercise IV – US 52 from Sageville to Holy Cross – Group Exercise - Session #8 8-1.
Overview  Improving highway safety is a priority for all state transportation departments.  Key roadway characteristics can be used to identify sections.
HSM Applications to Two-Lane Rural Highways Predicting Crash Frequency and Applying CMF’s for Two-Lane Rural Highway Intersections - Session #6 6-1.
Spring  Crash modification factors (CMFs) are becoming increasing popular: ◦ Simple multiplication factor ◦ Used for estimating safety improvement.
Enhanced Safety Prediction Methodology and Analysis Tool for Freeways and Interchanges James A. Bonneson August 2012 NCHRP Project
ALDOT HSIP FUNDING OPPORTUNTIES ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF SAFETY OPERATIONS SONYA BAKER TIMOTHY BARNETT MAY 13, 2015.
Incorporating Safety into the Highway Design Process.
Tender Packages (Consistency with Current Design Bulletins) Basic Knowledge for Roadway and Bridge Projects Seminar for CEA Members Edmonton February 12,
Role of SPFs in the Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM) Mike Dimaiuta LENDIS Corporation.
The Empirical Bayes Method for Safety Estimation Doug Harwood MRIGlobal Kansas City, MO.
Network Screening 1 Module 3 Safety Analysis in a Data-limited, Local Agency Environment: July 22, Boise, Idaho.
Project Development – High Priority Segments -- ATP 2 10/29/2012 Road Surface? Paved Gravel Segment received Stars for Lane Departure Crash Density & Critical.
Evaluation of Alternative Methods for Identifying High Collision Concentration Locations Raghavan Srinivasan 1 Craig Lyon 2 Bhagwant Persaud 2 Carol Martell.
A Systemic Approach to Safety Management NLTAPA Annual Conference July 30, 2012 Hillary Isebrands, P.E., PhD.
Jason J. Siwula, PE – Safety Engineer DOES 24+0=22+2? AN INTRO TO HSM METHODS.
Role of SPFs in SafetyAnalyst Ray Krammes Federal Highway Administration.
HSM: Another Tool for Safety Management in Wyoming 1 Excellence in Transportation.
NC Local Safety Partnership Selecting Interventions.
The Highway Safety Manual: A New Tool for Safety Analysis John Zegeer, PE Kittelson & Associates, Inc. HSM Production Team Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Unsignalized Intersections Safety at Unsignalized Intersections.
1 Update Update MnDOT’s County Roadway Safety Plans CTS Transportation Research Conference May 23, 2012 CH2M HILL, SRF Consulting Group, P.E. Services.
Putting Together a Safety Program Kevin J. Haas, P.E.—Traffic Investigations Engineer Oregon Department of Transportation Traffic—Roadway Section (Salem,
July 29 and 30, 2009 SPF Development in Illinois Yanfeng Ouyang Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM) By Josh Hinds.
Calibrating Highway Safety Manual Equations for Application in Florida Dr. Siva Srinivasan, Phillip Haas, Nagendra Dhakar, and Ryan Hormel (UF) Doug Harwood.
NCHRP Crash Reduction Factors for Traffic Engineering and ITS Improvements UNC HSRC VHB Ryerson University (Bhagwant and Craig)
Fall  Crashes are “independent” and “random” events (probabilistic events)  Estimate a relationship between crashes and covariates (or explanatory.
Highway Infrastructure and Operations Safety Research Needs (NCHRP 17-48) Prime Contractor: UNC Highway Safety Research Center Subcontractors: VHB Jim.
MAINE Highway Safety Information System Liaison Meeting Chapel Hill, North Carolina September , 2015 Darryl Belz, P.E. Maine Department of Transportation.
Cable Median Barrier with Inside Shoulder Rumble Strips on Divided Roads Raghavan Srinivasan, Bo Lan, & Daniel Carter, UNC Highway Safety Research Center.
1 THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL Michael S. Griffith Federal Highway Administration July 26 th, 2004.
Session 2 History How did SPF come into being and why is it here to stay? Geni Bahar, P.E. NAVIGATS Inc.
Role of Safety Performance Functions in the Highway Safety Manual July 29, 2009.
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.
HSM Applications to Suburban/Urban Multilane Intersections Prediction of Crash Frequency for Suburban/Urban Multilane Intersections - Session #9.
1 The Highway Safety Manual Predictive Methods. 2 New Highway Safety Manual of 2010 ►Methodology is like that for assessing and assuring the adequacy.
Exercise I – Prediction of Safety Performance for Rural Multilane Highway and Comparison to Substantive Safety Performance - Session #4 HSM Applications.
Highway Safety Manual (HSM) into Safety Processing
HSM Applications to Multilane Rural Highways and Urban Suburban Streets Predicting Crash Frequency and CMFs for Rural Divided Multilane Highways - Session.
HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL APPLICATIONS
HSM Applications to Multilane Rural Highways and Urban Suburban Streets Safety and Operational Effects of Geometric Design Features for Two-Lane Rural.
HSM Applications to Multilane Rural Highways and Urban Suburban Streets Safety and Operational Effects of Geometric Design Features for Two-Lane Rural.
ViDA Software Overview
HSM Practicitioner's Guide for Two-Lane Rural Highways Workshop
NDOT HSM Nevda Transportation Conference
Prediction of Crash Frequency for Suburban/Urban Multilane Streets
HSM Applications to Multilane Rural Highways and Urban Suburban Streets Safety and Operational Effects of Geometric Design Features for Two-Lane Rural.
Using CMFs in Planning for Virginia’s Project Funding Prioritization
HSM Applications to Multilane Rural Highways and Urban Suburban Streets Prediction of Crash Frequency and CMF’s for Undivided Rural Multilane Highways.
HSM Applications to Multilane Urban Suburban Multilane Intersections
Transportation Engineering Basic safety methods April 8, 2011
HSM Practioner's Guide for Two-Lane Rural Highways Workshop
HSM Practioner's Guide for Two-Lane Rural Highways Workshop
HSM Practicitioner's Guide for Two-Lane Rural Highways Workshop
Worked Example: Highway Safety Modeling
HSM Applications to Multilane Urban Suburban Multilane Intersections
HSM Applications to Multilane Urban Suburban Multilane Intersections
HSM Practioner's Guide for Two-Lane Rural Highways Workshop
HSM Practioner's Guide for Two-Lane Rural Highways Workshop
HSM Practitioner’s Guider for Two-Lane Rural Highways Workshop
Clark County, WA Safety Management Program
Presentation transcript:

DISTRICT PILOT PROJECT PRESENTATION MAY 2, Highway Safety Manual Implementation

 Overview of the Highway Safety Manual Implementation Plan  Update of the Development of SPF Calibration Factors  Available SPFs and CMFs  Sample Pilot Project Description and Analysis  Request for Pilot Project Descriptions 2 Highway Safety Manual Implementation Presentation Outline

3

4

5

6

CO & DISTRICT CHAMPIONS  Assign Top-Level District Champions  Participate in Top-down management presentations with the Central Office champions (Bob Romig, Brian Blanchard and Marianne Trussell)  Actively promote, support and advocate the benefits of implementing the Highway Safety Manual  Monitor pilot projects and implementation progress  Conduct recognition ceremonies for pilot project participants 7  Submit District Champion counterparts from Transportation Development and Operations to Marianne Trussell, Chief Safety Officer by April 29, 2011.

CALIBRATION OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL TO FLORIDA CONDITIONS

9 OVERVIEW  Calibration factors for fatal and injury models only  KAB and KABC

10 IDENTIFY FACILITY TYPES  FDOT Prioritized Segments  Rural two-lane roads  Rural multilane divided roads  Urban multilane divided arterials  Additional segments  Urban two-lane undivided arterials  Urban two-lane with TWLTL  Urban four-lane undivided arterials  Urban four-lane with TWLTL

11 FDOT PRIORITY FACILITY TYPES

12 COMPUTE CALIBRATION FACTOR

13 RURAL TWO-LANE ROADS  N = AADT × L × 365 × × e (-0.312)  CMFs with available data  Lane width, shoulder width, shoulder type, TWLTL, lighting  CMFs values assumed  Grade, driveway density, roadside hazard rating  HSM default values used

14 RURAL TWO-LANE ROADS Rural 2 Lane Calibration Factor KAB KABC

15 RURAL MULTILANE DIVIDED ROADS  N = exp[ a + b × ln(AADT) + ln(L) ]  CMFs with available data  Lane width, right shoulder width, median width, lighting  CMFs with values assumed  None Crash Severity Levelab 4-lane fatal and injury (KAB) lane fatal and injury (KABC)

16 RURAL MULTILANE DIVIDED ROADS Rural 4 Lane Divided Calibration Factor KAB KABC

17 URBAN ARTERIALS  CMFs with available data  Median width, on-street parking, lighting  CMFs with values assumed  Roadside fixed objects  CMF assumed to be 1.0  Driveway density  CMF assumed to be 1.0

18 URBAN 2 LANE UNDIVIDED Urban 2 Lane Undivided Calibration Factor KABC

19 URBAN 2 LANE WITH TWLTL Urban 2 Lane with TWLTL Calibration Factor KABC

20 URBAN 4 LANE DIVIDED ARTERIALS Urban 4 Lane Divided Calibration Factor KABC

21 URBAN 4 LANE UNDIVIDED Urban 4 Lane Undivided Calibration Factor KABC

22 URBAN 4 LANE WITH TWLTL Urban 4 Lane with TWLTL Calibration Factor KABC

23 BIKE LANES – URBAN 4 LANE DIVIDED  Without bike lane separation  With bike lanes  Without bike lanes

CALIBRATION SUMMARY

25 INTERSECTION DATA  Data Needs  Rural and Urban  AADT, Crashes, skew, left-turn lanes, right-turn lanes, lighting,  Urban only  pedestrian activity, left-turn signal phasing, right-turn-on- red, red-light cameras, bus stops, schools, alcohol sales establishments

26 INTERSECTION DATA  Crash Analysis Reporting System  Geometric characteristics?  Lat, long coordinates?  FDOT Intersection Study  Signalized: no geometry, no 2 nd AADT  Un-signalized: no AADT

27 SAMPLE PILOT PROJECT SR 44 from Hill Avenue to West of CR 4139 is a rural 2-lane undivided roadway with curved roadway segments. Five curves exist within the project limits and one curve would require a design exception for super-elevation. Equation 10-6 (HSM-Part C) and the applicable CMFs (HSM-Part D) will be used to predict crashes for the roadway segment that includes Curve 1 and determine if a design exception is justified.

28 SAMPLE PILOT PROJECT

29 SAMPLE PILOT PROJECT The following information is available: 1.Length of segment: 0.10 miles 2.AADT: 17,300 in 2010 (opening year); 26,600 in 2030 (design year) 3.Grade: 0.0% 4.Radius of curve: 573’ 5.Driveways per mile: 2 6.Lane width: 12’ 7.Shoulder width: 4’ 8.Shoulder type: paved 9.Roadside hazard rating: 2 (based on 18’ CZ with 1:4 front slopes) 10.Curve length: 0.06 miles 11.Existing e: 3.5% (eastbound) and 0.0% (westbound) 12.Required e: 10.0% 13.Calibration factor: 1.01

 Apply the appropriate SPF  N = AADT × L × 365 × 10 –6 × e (–0.312)  = 17,300 × × 365 × 10 –6 × e (–0.312) = crashes/year 30 SAMPLE PILOT PROJECT

 Adjust the estimated crash frequency to the site specific geometric conditions  1. CMF 1r = (CMF ra – 1.0) x p ra =  = (1.0 – 1.0) x = 1.0  2. CMF 2r = (CMF wra x CMF tra – 1.0) x p ra =  = (1.15 x 1.0 – 1.0) x = 1.11  3. CMF 3r = 31 SAMPLE PILOT PROJECT (1.55 x L c ) + (80.2 / R) – (0.012 x S) (1.55 x L c ) = (1.55 x 0.06) + (80.2 / 573) – (0.012 x 0) (1.55 x 0.06) == Note: CMF 1r => lane width; CMF 2r => shoulder width and type; CMF 3r => horizontal curvature 2.51

 4. CMF 4r = (SV ) =  = ( ) = 1.30  5. CMF 5r = 1.0 (grade < 3%)  6. CMF 6r = 1.0 (less than 5 driveways / mile)  7. CMF 7r = 1.0 (no rumble strips)  8. CMF 8r = 1.0 (no passing lanes)  9. CMF 9r = 1.0 (no TWLTL) 32 SAMPLE PILOT PROJECT Note: CMF 4r => super-elevation variance

 10. CMF 10r = 33 SAMPLE PILOT PROJECT e ( x RHR) e ( ) = e ( x 2) e ( ) = 0.94  11. CMF 11r = 1.00 (no roadway lighting)  12. CMF 12r = 1.00 (no automated speed enforcement)  CMF comb = 1.11 x 2.51 x 1.30 x 0.94 = 3.41 Note: CMF 10r => roadside hazard rating = 2 (based on 18’CZ with 1:4 front slopes).

 N predicted-rs = x 3.41 x 1.01 = 2.59 crashes/year  Annual KABC Cost of Crashes (existing conditions)  Fatal = x 2.59 x $6,380,000 = $214,815  Incap. = x 2.59 x $521,768 = $72,974  Nonincap. = x 2.59 x $104,052 = $29,375  Poss. Injury = x 2.59 x $63,510 = $23,851  ANNUAL CRASH COST (existing conditions)= $341, SAMPLE PILOT PROJECT Note: crash costs from STATE SAFETY OFFICE BULLETIN 0-01 or ROADWAY DESIGN BULLETIN 10-09

 Adjust the estimated crash frequency to the site specific geometric conditions (build)  1. CMF 1r = (CMF ra – 1.0) x p ra =  = (1.0 – 1.0) x = 1.0  2. CMF 2r = (CMF wra x CMF tra – 1.0) x p ra =  = (1.15 x 1.0 – 1.0) x = 1.11  3. CMF 3r = 35 SAMPLE PILOT PROJECT (1.55 x L c ) + (80.2 / R) – (0.012 x S) (1.55 x L c ) = (1.55 x 0.08) + (80.2 / 750) – (0.012 x 0) (1.55 x 0.08) == Note: CMF 1r => lane width; CMF 2r => shoulder width and type; CMF 3r => horizontal curvature 1.86

 4. CMF 4r = (SV ) =  = ( ) = 1.06  5. CMF 5r = 1.0 (grade < 3%)  6. CMF 6r = 1.0 (less than 5 driveways / mile)  7. CMF 7r = 1.0 (no rumble strips)  8. CMF 8r = 1.0 (no passing lanes)  9. CMF 9r = 1.0 (no TWLTL) 36 SAMPLE PILOT PROJECT Note: CMF 4r => super-elevation variance

 10. CMF 10r = 37 SAMPLE PILOT PROJECT e ( x RHR) e ( ) = e ( x 2) e ( ) = 0.94  11. CMF 11r = 1.00 (no roadway lighting)  12. CMF 12r = 1.00 (no automated speed enforcement)  CMF comb = 1.11 x 1.86 x 1.06 x 0.94 = 2.06 Note: CMF 10r => roadside hazard rating = 2 (based on 18’CZ with 1:4 front slopes).

 N predicted-rs = x 2.06 x 1.01 = 1.57 crashes/year  Annual KABC Cost of Crashes (build conditions)  Fatal = x 1.57 x $6,380,000 = $130,216  Incap. = x 1.57 x $521,768 = $44,235  Nonincap. = x 1.57 x $104,052 = $17,806  Poss. Injury = x 1.57 x $63,510 = $14,458  ANNUAL CRASH COST (existing conditions)= $206, SAMPLE PILOT PROJECT Note: crash costs from STATE SAFETY OFFICE BULLETIN 0-01 or ROADWAY DESIGN BULLETIN 10-09

 BENEFIT/COST RATIO  B/C = 39 SAMPLE PILOT PROJECT Annual Reduction in Crash Costs Annual Increase in Construction Costs = 314,015 – 206,715 = Note: Construction costs were annualized at 4% over 15 years x 821,748 = 73, , : 1

DISTRICT ACTION  Submit a description of a pilot project that can be analyzed using the current Highway Safety Manual.  Submit: narrative that describes the project alternatives and the input values  Central Office will review the proposed analysis and provide feedback that may include resource information, discussion of appropriate methodology, etc.  Submit by Wednesday, May 11 th.  Information will be shared with District Champions. 40

41 THE NEW HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL OF 2010 Questions?