Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 26 Schedule.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 1 RISK-BASED MANAGEMENT OF GUARDRAILS: SITE SELECTION AND UPGRADING.

Advertisements

HSM Implementation Tools Safety Analyst

TRAILS AS TRANSPORTATION Design & Construction Michael J. Kubek, P.E. Ohio Department of Transportation, District 12 Production Administrator.

Highway Safety & Wildlife: A National Perspective October 24-25, 2005 Patrick Hasson National Technical Service Team Leader Safety and Design FHWA Tel:

Overview  Improving highway safety is a priority for all state transportation departments.  Key roadway characteristics can be used to identify sections.

Waheed Uddin, PhD., P.E. Professor and Director, CAIT Center for Advanced Infrastructure Technology Department of Civil Engineering The University of Mississippi.

1 SDDOT SAFETY PROGRAM. 2 Who Am I ??? CLIFF REUER TRAFFIC & SAFETY ENIGNEER SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

Spring INTRODUCTION There exists a lot of methods used for identifying high risk locations or sites that experience more crashes than one would.

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.

Incorporating Safety into the Highway Design Process.

Road Safety Audits Ghazwan al-Haji PhD student ”On whats goes wrong in road design and how to put it right safely”

Safety Audit Components Safety assessment for risk Management.

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 1 RISK-BASED MANAGEMENT OF GUARDRAILS: SITE SELECTION AND UPGRADING.

1 Risk Assessment Develop Objectives And Goals Develop and Screen Cleanup Alternatives Select Final Cleanup Alternative Communicate Decisions to the Public.

Detours – Selection and Design Highways & Engineering Conference March 2, 2006.

Hypothesis 1: Narrow roadways and roadways with higher speed limits will increase risk of vehicle/bicycle crash Hypothesis 2: Bicycle lanes and signage.

2002 AASHTO ROADSIDE DESIGN GUIDE A CONCISE OVERVIEW.

Determining Innovative Contracting Methods to Reduce User Costs Stuart Thompson Utah Technology Transfer Center.

Unstable Slope Management for Oregon Highways: Using Cost-Based Risk Assessment in Conjunction with Site Characteristics to Manage Landslide and Rockfall.

Driving Indiana’s Economic Growth. Management and Preservation of Indiana's Historic Bridges: A Programmatic Approach Thanks to Mead & Hunt & FHWA-IN.

Intersection & Interchange Geometrics (IIG) Innovative Design Considerations for All Users Module 8 Intersection- Interchange Evaluation Process.

Best Practices Related to Research Problem Identification, Scoping, and Programming: A Researcher’s View Martin Pietrucha, Director The Thomas D. Larson.

Alameda Creek Bridge Replacement Scoping Meeting March 4, 2014.

Server Virtualization: Navy Network Operations Centers

NCHRP Synthesis 458: Roadway Safety Data Interoperability Between Local and State Agencies Presented to ATSIP TRF 2014 Presented by Nancy Lefler Vanasse.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Safety Investment Program (SIP) Policies for Oregon Literature Review Findings.

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 1 Aids to the Comparison of Improvement Projects of the Virginia.

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.

Wyoming’s Approach to Safety Using the New SHRP2 Data Martin Kidner, State Planning Engineer Wyoming DOT July 22, 2015.

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.

ABC POLICY DEVELOPMENT IOWA DOT Norman McDonald, PE Iowa Department of Transportation Office of Bridges and Structures MID-CONTINENT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH.

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 151 Safety Judgment of acceptability of risk Subjective component.

Safety management software for state and local highway agencies: –Improves identification and programming of site- specific highway safety improvements.

Timothy E. Barnett, P.E., PTOE State Safety Operations Engineer Alabama Department of Transportation.

ITS Standards Program Strategic Plan Summary June 16, 2009 Blake Christie Principal Engineer, Noblis for Steve Sill Project Manager, ITS Standards Program.

Introduction: Overview of Roadway Safety Management Safety Analysis in a Data-limited, Local Agency Environment: July 22, Boise, Idaho 1 Module.

Data Palooza Workshop May 9, 2013 Rabinder Bains, FHWA – Office of Policy and Government Affairs.

HSM: Another Tool for Safety Management in Wyoming 1 Excellence in Transportation.

3000 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 208 Washington, DC

9-1 Using SafetyAnalyst Module 4 Countermeasure Evaluation.

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 26 Potential for Improvement Additional data –Accidents concerning.

Strategic Highway Research Program 2 Project L07 Identification and Evaluation of the Cost- Effectiveness of Highway Design Features to Reduce Nonrecurrent.

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 101 Wyoming DOT Place guardrail when there is a fill slope of.

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 126 Japan D a = expected damage in collision accidents after.

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 1 RISK-BASED MANAGEMENT OF GUARDRAILS: SITE SELECTION AND UPGRADING.

Putting Together a Safety Program Kevin J. Haas, P.E.—Traffic Investigations Engineer Oregon Department of Transportation Traffic—Roadway Section (Salem,

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 176 Alternative Database System HSIS (Highway Safety Information.

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.

US 421 Centerline Rumble Strips in Chatham Co. Renee B. Roach, P.E. and Al Grandy May 2, 2007.

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 1 RISK-BASED MANAGEMENT OF GUARDRAILS: SITE SELECTION AND UPGRADING.

Safety-Based Deployment Assistance for Location of V2I Applications Carol Tan, FHWA and Kim Eccles, VHB Traffic Records Forum, 2015.

Texas Department of Transportation Corpus Christi District U.S. 181 (Harbor Bridge) Environmental Documentation and Schematic Development Citizens’ Advisory.

1 THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL Michael S. Griffith Federal Highway Administration July 26 th, 2004.

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 201 Data Available for Map 3 Data available on corridor level.

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.

City of Joliet - Sustainability City of Joliet Sustainability Initiatives American Planning Association National Conference April 16, 2013.

Iron Range Tourism Bureau April 25, 2013 Hwy 53 Update.

LOW COST SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS Practitioner Workshop The Tools – Identification of High Crash Locations – Session #2.

Presented to presented by Alabama Department of Transportation April 8, 2016 The Alabama Transportation Planner’s Guide to Safety Data Access and Documentation.

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.

Interdisciplinary teams Existing or new roadway

Highway Safety Improvement Program

Overcoming Barriers to Implement Research Projects

Design Consistency and Positive Guidance

Network Screening & Diagnosis

Safety Audit Components

Highway Safety Improvement Program

Clark County, WA Safety Management Program

Presentation transcript:

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 26 Schedule

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 27 Deliverables Methodology for cost-benefit-risk tradeoff analysis Evaluation of literature Characterization of experience of resident engineers Recommendations of factors and measurement endpoints Identification of options for site selection and upgrading, including the two phases of screening and evaluation

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 28 Deliverables (cont.) Databases and demonstration of the above methodology Documentation of the automating spreadsheets Interim and final reports, presentations, and automating spreadsheets Maintenance of an internet web site

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 29 Review of Comparison Tool

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 30 Motivation Tools are needed to equitably balance: –Crash reduction, –Capacity improvement, and –Project cost –Other factors To aid in the decisions of what roadway-projects to undertake with available funds

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 31 Project Objective Our objective is to provide tools to assist the Virginia Department of Transportation in improving the comparison in planning of potential roadway improvement projects.

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 32 Criteria Included in Comparison Safety Aesthetic Value Cost Performance Environmental Concerns Explicitly Quantified Implicitly Addressed Economic Development

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 33 Daily Traffic Travel Time Saved per Vehicle Total Travel Time Saved Crashes per Year Crashes per Vehicle Crashes Avoided per Vehicle Crashes Avoided per Year Lives Lost, Injuries Comparison-Tool Options Right of Way Preliminary Engineering Construction Engineering Life Cycle Length of Road-Section RISK PERFORMANCE COST

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 34 Intuitive Graphical Representation Crash risk reduction Performance gain Note: Icon area is proportional to project Cost.

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 35 Precision of the Assessment

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 36 Cost Crash Risk Reduction Performance Gain

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 37 Sample of Database of Richmond District (from Travis Bridewell)

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 38 Database of Richmond District

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 39 Literature Review Guiding principles ~ King (1995) Prioritization technique ~ Pigman and Agent (1991), Caldwell and Wilson (1999) Cost-effectiveness approaches –AASHTO Roadside Design Guide (1989) –Mak (1995) –Glennon (1974)

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 40 Literature Review (cont.) Warranting Methods –Charts –Flow charts –Guidance tables and figures Experiences of traffic agencies –New York –Ohio –California Survey of State DOTs –Minnesota –Wyoming –Alaska

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 41 Guiding Principles (1)Remove hazard (2)Relocate hazard –Lower probability of a collision (3)Make the hazard forgiving –Crash cushions –Breakaway Use guardrail only when all other options eliminated Alert motorist to any hazard, i.e. flashing lights, warning signs, rumble strips, etc. King (1995) (From Travis Bridewell)

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 42 Prioritization Technique Procedure used to identify and rank locations for guardrail installation and replacement Uses a hazard-index point system Pigman and Agent (1991)

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 43 Pigman and Agent (1991) 1. Development of critical numbers and rates of run-off-road accidents 2. Preparation of list of locations with critical rate of run-off-road accidents 3. Development of hazard-index point system 4. Conduction of a field study 5. Tabulation of hazard-index points 8. Analysis of cost-effectiveness 7. Determine improvement benefits 6. Determination of improvement costs

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 44 Steps of Technique (1)Development of critical numbers and rates of run-off-road accidents A c = critical accident rate; A a = average accident rate; K = constant related to level of statistical significance selected (K=2.576 for a probability of 0.995); M = exposure (for sections, M was in terms of 100 million vehicle-miles, for spots, M was in terms of million vehicles Pigman and Agent (1991)

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 45 (2)Preparation of list of locations with critical rate of run-off-road accidents (i.e. list of locations with critical rate factors greater than 1.0) (3)Development of hazard-index point system Steps of Technique Pigman and Agent (1991)

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 46 Hazard-Index Point System 1. Number of run-off-road accidents15 2. Run-off-road accident rate15 3. Traffic volume10 4. Speed limit or prevailing speed10 5. Lane and shoulder width10 6. Roadside recovery distance10 7. Embankment slope10 8. Embankment height10 9. Culvert presence5 10. Subjective roadside hazard rating5 Pigman and Agent (1991)

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 47 Step of Technique (cont.) (4)Conduction of a field study –Data collection on locations with critical rate factors greater than 1.0 (5)Tabulation of hazard-index points –Develop a list of locations in decreasing order in order to identify a manageable number of locations on which a cost- effectiveness analysis can be performed Pigman and Agent (1991)

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 48 Step of Technique (cont.) (6)Determination of improvement costs (7)Determine improvement benefits –Accident reduction factors –Severity indices Pigman and Agent (1991)

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 49 Step of Technique (cont.) (8)Analysis of cost-effectiveness –Listing of locations in decreasing benefit-cost –Optimization of budget Pigman and Agent (1991)

Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems University of Virginia, Charlottesville 50 Inputs for Budget Optimization Number of locations to be analyzed Budget levels to be considered Costs assigned to each accident severity Interest rate Traffic growth rate Accident history Alternatives for reducing accidents Expected improvement life Improvement cost Annual maintenance cost Expected reductions in accidents due to improvements Pigman and Agent (1991)