B/C methods Iowa DOT Texas.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
DESTINATION INNOVATION PROGRAM SAFE COORIDOR ENHANCEMENT (SCorE) Jon Jackels Mn/DOT ITS Program Engineer Traffic Topics April 7, 2011.
Advertisements

Tracy Lovell, PE A FOCUSED APPROACH TO SAFETY. Provide a Transportation System  Safe  Efficient  Environmentally Sound  Fiscally Responsible.
Worked Example: Highway Safety Modeling. Outline –Safety Modeling »Safety Modeling Process –Set-up for Worked Example –Develop / Build Safety Model »Project.
HFST Council Meeting FHWA Update Frank Julian Federal Highway Administration Resource Center - Safety and Design Team August, ATSSA Mid Year.
9-1 LOW COST SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS Practitioner Workshop Exercise C – Session #9.
Automated Enforcement at Rail Crossings in Grand Prairie, Texas Sgt. Eric Hansen Grand Prairie Police Department Traffic Section.
Incorporating Safety into the Highway Design Process.
Presented By: Jeff Bagdade Traffic Engineer AAA Michigan Road Improvement Demonstration Program Economic Analyses Presented By: Jeff Bagdade Traffic Engineer.
Office of Traffic, Safety and Technology Chapter 7 Signing Plan Sets Traffic Signs 101 November 20, 2014.
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users SAFETEA-LU Key Highway Safety Provisions Elizabeth Alicandri FHWA.
All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) Program Kevin J. Haas, P.E. Traffic Investigations Engineer, ODOT February 26, 2015.
Safety and Design National Technical Services Team 1 Systematic Approach to Intersection Safety May 11, st Annual Missouri Traffic and Safety Conference.
. Efforts to Reduce Crashes on County Roads in Iowa.
ODOT Wildlife Program_RTL_ Initiating the Oregon Wildlife Movement Strategy Melinda Trask, ODOT Geo-Environmental Section,
Network Screening 1 Module 3 Safety Analysis in a Data-limited, Local Agency Environment: July 22, Boise, Idaho.
Week 6, CE 552 The Traffic Safety Profession and the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
Selecting Countermeasures 1 Module 5 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.
1 CEE 763 Fall 2011 Topic 1 – Fundamentals CEE 763.
9-1 LOW COST SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS Practitioner Workshop Exercise C – Session #9.
Highway Costs Spring Highway Transportation Costs Type of CostExamples Highway investment costEngineering design, ROW, grading, drainage, pavement.
October 25, 2015 Funding Your Program October 20, 2008 ATSSA Sign Maintenance and Management Workshop Addison, Texas.
3000 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 208 Washington, DC
TxDOT UTP Category 3 Urban Area (Non-TMA) Corridor Projects Workshops.
CHAPTER SEVEN Risk, Return, and Portfolio Theory J.D. Han.
Accident Scene Safety Module 1 – Vehicle Safety Section 1 - Driving Safety.
Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 101 Wyoming DOT Place guardrail when there is a fill slope of.
Unsignalized Intersections Safety at Unsignalized Intersections.
The H-GAC Traffic Safety Program 2004 Status Report Report to the Technical Advisory Committee September 8, 2004 Ned Levine, PhD Houston-Galveston Area.
Utah Research Benefits Value of Research Taskforce July 29, 2015 Cameron Kergaye Utah Department of Transportation.
Jason J. Siwula, PE – Safety Engineer HSIP HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT SIGNING.
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users Advancing Safety through SAFETEA-LU Michael Halladay FHWA Office of.
Office of Traffic, Safety and Technology Chapter 8 Maintenance of Signs Traffic Signs 101 November 20, 2014.
Funding Target Formula 32.50% Total VMT (on and off State Hwy System) 22.19% Population 16.88% Lane miles (on System) 14.06% VMT (trucks only) 6.88% Percent.
Session 2 History How did SPF come into being and why is it here to stay? Geni Bahar, P.E. NAVIGATS Inc.
W.D.M. Limited North View, Staple Hill, Bristol BS16 4NX Telephone: Web: Andy Stevenson Anuradha Premathelaka John Donbavand.
Pioneer Road Relocation and Reconstruction Project
Department of Economics The University of Akron
Chris Kennedy, Martin Sachs, Mark Stephenson
Implementation of Quality indicators for administrative data
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.
HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL APPLICATIONS
Overview of FHWA CMAQ & System Performance Measures
Interdisciplinary teams Existing or new roadway
District 6 – Safety Applications
Lessons Learned from HSIP & CMAQ
TRB Annual Meeting Performance Measure
HSM Practicitioner's Guide for Two-Lane Rural Highways Workshop
Data-Driven Safety Analysis
NDOT HSM Nevda Transportation Conference
Overcoming Barriers to Implement Research Projects
Category 2 Parameters Transportation Management Areas (TMA) – 200,000+ pop. 8 TMAs in Texas Austin Corpus Christi Dallas-Fort Worth El Paso Hidalgo County.
Moving Maryland Toward Zero Deaths
Chapter 7 Signing Plan Sets
SCOHTS Meeting June 15-17, 2011.
Chapter 8 Maintenance of Signs
Safety Audit Components
Misapplications of CMFs
MPO/RPO Safety Performance Measures
The safety problem: nature of the problem, extent (partially covered already), factors CE 552 week 4.
HSM Practicitioner's Guide for Two-Lane Rural Highways Workshop
The national problem Importance of data
Worked Example: Highway Safety Modeling
Effect of Crashes on Traffic Congestion and Travel Reliability
SCOHTS Meeting June 15-17, 2011.
HSM Practitioner’s Guider for Two-Lane Rural Highways Workshop
U.S. DOT Funding Opportunities for Idle-Reduction Projects
How to Safely Approach and Pass Through an Intersection
Clark County, WA Safety Management Program
Webinar: Responding to the FHWA CMAQ & System Performance Measures:
Presentation transcript:

B/C methods Iowa DOT Texas

B/C analysis in highway safety – the Iowa DOT approach Following are actual applications submitted for Traffic Safety Funds. The applications include a B/C prepared by the applicants:  TSIP Application US 69 Curves by Randall.pdf 19th & MLK Corridor Safety Improvements--Signed tsipforms.doc.pdf

Below are the B/C sheets prepared for each submission: US 69 B-C.xls 19th & MLK North Section B-C.xls 19th & MLK South Section B-C.xls

Typically, revisions made to the B/C are: Eliminating crashes because they are not within the project or have no chance of being reduced by the improvement type (animal crashes) Changing the Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) to something more appropriate Changing the expected life of the improvement.

There are several other nuances. The first fatality is treated as a major injury so one rare event does not dominate the analysis. You must take care to only include crashes that match the CRF that is used. You can't use a factor that will reduce rear-end crashes by 40 percent and apply it to all crash types. (Same for severity.)’

If you want to use a CRF that only applies to severe crashes you also have to consider if that treatment may lead to an increase in less-severe crashes. (e.g., cable median barrier) The new HSM methodology takes this into account. For the Iowa DOT tour B/C sheet, you can combine multiple CRFs, but you have to use the formula provided; each CRF must apply to all crash types; and you must use the shortest design life of the various improvements. (again, the HSM provides more robust methodology to determine future benefits for multiple design lives.)

The Safety Improvement Index (SII) TXDOT application SII = B/C, where: S = annual savings in crash costs (equal to crash cost savings per year less annual maintenance costs) R = percentage reduction factor (see following subsection for explanation) F = number of fatal and incapacitating injury crashes (see following subsection for explanation) Cf = cost of a fatal or incapacitating injury crash (see following subsection for explanation) I = number of non-incapacitating injury crashes (see following subsection for explanation) Ci = cost of a non-incapacitating injury crash (see following subsection for explanation) Y = number of years of crash data M = change in annual maintenance costs for the proposed project relative to the existing situation Q = annual change in crash cost savings Aa = projected average annual Average Daily Traffic (ADT) at the end of the project service life Ab = average annual ADT during the year before the project is implemented L = project service life (see following subsection for explanation) B = present worth of project benefits over its service life C = initial cost of the project