9-1 Using SafetyAnalyst Module 4 Countermeasure Evaluation.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
A Comprehensive Study on Pavement Edge Line Implementation Presented by: Mark J. Morvant, P.E. Associate Director, Research Louisiana Transportation Research.
Advertisements

HSM Implementation Tools Safety Analyst
Spring Before-After Studies Recap: we need to define the notation that will be used for performing the two tasks at hand. Let: be the expected number.
Concepts of Database Management Seventh Edition
SafetyAnalyst Michael S. Griffith FHWA July 2003.
SafetyAnalyst Overview Presentation Michael S. Griffith FHWA June 2003.
Spring  Crash modification factors (CMFs) are becoming increasing popular: ◦ Simple multiplication factor ◦ Used for estimating safety improvement.
Investigation of Varied Time Intervals in Crash Hotspot Identification Authors: Wen Cheng, Ph.D., P.E., Fernando Gonzalez, EIT, & Xudong Jia; California.
Oregon Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Implementation Plan.
Spring INTRODUCTION There exists a lot of methods used for identifying high risk locations or sites that experience more crashes than one would.
Chapter 8 Developing Written Tests and Surveys Physical Fitness Knowledge.
The University of Akron Dept of Business Technology Computer Information Systems The Relational Model: Query-By-Example (QBE) 2440: 180 Database Concepts.
Evaluation Tools to Support ITS Planning Process FDOT Research #BD presented to Model Advancement Committee presented by Mohammed Hadi, Ph.D., PE.
System Design and Analysis
Aaker, Kumar, Day Ninth Edition Instructor’s Presentation Slides
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS OVERVIEW Lecture 2. n Provide a historical perspective of the evolution of PMS over the last 20 years n Describe the basic.
Meta-Analysis and Strategy Research Dan R. Dalton Kelley School of Business Indiana University.
Agenda: Block Watch: Random Assignment, Outcomes, and indicators Issues in Impact and Random Assignment: Youth Transition Demonstration –Who is randomized?
Safety Audit Components Safety assessment for risk Management.
Marketing Research Aaker, Kumar, Day Seventh Edition Instructor’s Presentation Slides.
Chapter 7 Estimation: Single Population
Diagnosis of Sites with Potential for Safety Improvement 1 Module 4 Safety Analysis in a Data-limited, Local Agency Environment July 22, Boise,
©2008 TTW Where “Lean” principles are considered common sense and are implemented with a passion! Product Training Purchase Invoices.
An Intelligent Transportation System Evaluation Tool in the FSUTMS Regional Demand Modeling Environment By Mohammed Hadi, Florida International University.
Road Safety Management Process
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 26 Schedule.
Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys Survey Design Workshop Sampling: Overview MICS Survey Design Workshop.
Chapter 6 : Software Metrics
NETWORK LEVEL EXAMPLES OF PMS İNŞ.YÜK. MÜH. VEYSEL ARLI.
Network Screening 1 Module 3 Safety Analysis in a Data-limited, Local Agency Environment: July 22, Boise, Idaho.
2-1 LOW COST SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS The Tools – Identification of High Crash Locations – Session #2.
PAUL ALEXANDRU CHIRITA STEFANIA COSTACHE SIEGFRIED HANDSCHUH WOLFGANG NEJDL 1* L3S RESEARCH CENTER 2* NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND PROCEEDINGS OF THE.
Evaluation of Alternative Methods for Identifying High Collision Concentration Locations Raghavan Srinivasan 1 Craig Lyon 2 Bhagwant Persaud 2 Carol Martell.
1 CEE 763 Fall 2011 Topic 1 – Fundamentals CEE 763.
Safety management software for state and local highway agencies: –Improves identification and programming of site- specific highway safety improvements.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Performance Evaluation and Active Portfolio Management CHAPTER 18.
Concepts of Database Management Seventh Edition
Introduction: Overview of Roadway Safety Management Safety Analysis in a Data-limited, Local Agency Environment: July 22, Boise, Idaho 1 Module.
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.
Overview of the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual Kevin J. Haas, P.E.—Traffic Investigations Engineer Oregon Department of Transportation Traffic—Roadway Section.
Some ACS Data Issues and Statistical Significance (MOEs) Table Release Rules Statistical Filtering & Collapsing Disclosure Review Board Statistical Significance.
Data Palooza Workshop May 9, 2013 Rabinder Bains, FHWA – Office of Policy and Government Affairs.
Transportation leadership you can trust. presented to Safety Data Analysis Tools Workshop presented by Krista Jeannotte Cambridge Systematics, Inc. March.
Les Mills International Relaunch, Retention, Acquisition.
1 of 27 The EPA 7-Step DQO Process Step 5 - Define Decision Rules (15 minutes) Presenter: Sebastian Tindall Day 2 DQO Training Course Module 5.
United Nations Workshop on Revision 3 of Principles and Recommendations for Population and Housing Censuses and Evaluation of Census Data, Amman 19 – 23.
July 29 and 30, 2009 SPF Development in Illinois Yanfeng Ouyang Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Calibrating Highway Safety Manual Equations for Application in Florida Dr. Siva Srinivasan, Phillip Haas, Nagendra Dhakar, and Ryan Hormel (UF) Doug Harwood.
1 CEE 763 Fall 2011 Topic 3 – Safety Management Process – Other Steps CEE 763.
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 Safety Analysis: Engineering Kenneth Epstein, P.E. Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety Programs Safety Data and Analysis Tools Workshop.
1 Ian Skinner Crash information Systems Integrating geographical and statistical analysis for maximum benefit.
Session 21-1 Session 44 The Verification Selection Process.
1 THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL Michael S. Griffith Federal Highway Administration July 26 th, 2004.
SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (HSIP) GRANTS Presented By: Patrick V. DeChellis Deputy Director Los Angeles County Department.
Session 2 History How did SPF come into being and why is it here to stay? Geni Bahar, P.E. NAVIGATS Inc.
HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEANS AND BETWEEN PROPORTIONS.
Role of Safety Performance Functions in the Highway Safety Manual July 29, 2009.
LOW COST SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS Practitioner Workshop The Tools – Identification of High Crash Locations – Session #2.
Low Cost Safety Improvements Pooled Fund Study Analytical Basics Dr. Bhagwant Persaud.
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.
PV-Trend: A JSL Application for Trending Topics for Pharmacovigilance
Interdisciplinary teams Existing or new roadway
THE SOCIAL PROTECTION FLOOR (SPF) COST CALCULATOR
Network Screening & Diagnosis
Safety Audit Components
Misapplications of CMFs
CARSP Conference May 26-29, 2019 Calgary
Presentation transcript:

9-1 Using SafetyAnalyst Module 4 Countermeasure Evaluation

9-2 Why the Countermeasure Evaluation Tool? Goal of SafetyAnalyst is to help agencies determine how funds can be spent in the most cost-effective manner to improve safety Results of Module 4 can be used to: –Plan safety improvement programs –Update AMFs for use within Module 3 – Economic Appraisal and Priority Ranking

9-3 When to Use the Countermeasure Evaluation Tool The same countermeasure has been implemented at a number of sites The agency wants to assess how effectively the countermeasure performed: –Did it improve the overall safety performance at the respective sites? –Did it reduce a specific target accident type? –Was it cost-effective?

9-4 What Information Is Needed Locations of improved sites Countermeasure(s) to evaluate for each site –Year of implementation Site characteristics ADTs (before and after improvement) Yearly accident counts (before and after) Safety performance functions (SPFs)

9-5 General Steps for Countermeasure Evaluation Step 1 – Create a list of sites to be evaluated Step 2 – If necessary, add implemented countermeasure information to sites Step 3 – Select type of analysis Step 4 – Review results report

9-6 Step 1 – Create a List of Sites to Be Evaluated Site list to include only locations where a specific countermeasure has been implemented Sites should be of the same site type Desirable to include as many sites as possible –Statistically significant results are more likely with a greater number of sites

9-7 Countermeasure Evaluation Minimum Number of Sites Likelihood of finding statistically significant effects due to a countermeasure increases as the number of evaluation sites increase General rule of thumb: –Recommend 10 to 20 sites with 3 to 5 years of BEFORE accident data and 3 to 5 years of AFTER accident data

9-8 Step 2 – Add Countermeasure Information to Sites The countermeasure implemented at the evaluation sites must be identified before the evaluation can proceed: –The Data Management Tool (or Implemented Countermeasure Tool) is used to add this data to SafetyAnalyst –Countermeasure name and date may be imported with the tool or entered manually

9-9 Step 2 – Add Countermeasure Information to Sites The following information is needed for the implemented countermeasure at each site: –Countermeasure name –Construction start date –Construction end date –Major reconstruction flag –Construction cost (optional)

Step 3 – Select Type of Analysis The user must choose between a project analysis or a countermeasure analysis For a project analysis, the implemented countermeasure file is searched for all projects that include site list sites for selection by the user For a countermeasure analysis, a similar search returns individual countermeasures found for sites in the site list 9-10

9-11 Countermeasure Analysis This is the primary analytical technique The user must select which countermeasure(s) are being evaluated Multiple selections may be evaluated individually or as a countermeasure combination Only those sites in the site list with matching implemented countermeasure(s) will be included in the analysis

Project Analysis This is a secondary analytical technique that provides an estimate of safety improvement across all sites and countermeasures entered in a project Individual projects are evaluated separately Results are not reported with statistical certainty 9-12

9-13 Step 3 – Select Statistical Analysis Test for percent change in accident frequencies –Empirical Bayes (EB) method Test for change in proportion of target accident types –Wilcoxon signed rank test Both evaluations are available for both analysis types

9-14 Accident Severity Level User has a choice to perform the effectiveness analysis based upon one or more of the following: –Total accidents –Fatal and severe injury accidents –Fatal and all injury accidents –Property-damage-only accidents

9-15 Accident/AADT History The user must specify the time periods, or number of years of data, that will be used in the analysis: –Years before construction –Years after construction –Exclude years prior to major reconstruction –Buffer period for construction

Individual Site Selections Accident/AADT History is individually adjustable for each site being evaluated Site details may be reviewed to include/exclude site from the analysis SPF to be used in calculations may be adjusted Construction cost may be reviewed and updated 9-16

9-17 Accident Attribute Selection Evaluations can consider specific collision types related to: –Accident type and manner of collision –Vehicle turning movement –Light condition –Weather condition –Roadway surface condition –Others

9-18 Step 4 – Review Results Report Two types of output reports are generated during a countermeasure evaluation, in accordance with the two basic types of before-after evaluations. Summary information is provided for: –Input parameters –Effectiveness table –Site characteristics for individual sites –Accident statistics for individual sites

9-19 Output Measures for Percent Change in Accident Frequency Effectiveness (% change) Statistical Significance Effectiveness (Odds Ratio) Variance (Theta) Standard Error (Theta) Standard Error (E) Test Statistic

9-20 Output Measures for Change in Proportions of Target Accidents Simple average proportion BEFORE Simple average proportion AFTER Simple average difference (After- Before) Number of sites included in the statistical analysis

9-21 Output Measures for Change in Proportions of Target Accidents Estimated median treatment effect Selected (nominal significance level) Lower confidence limit of median treatment effect Upper confidence limit of median treatment effect Summary of statistical significance

Benefits of Using Module 4 Complex before-after analyses simple to specify and conduct Useful for HSIP reporting Update AMFs for use in Module 3 economic analyses 9-22

Questions 9-23