1 Element 1: The Systemic Safety Project Selection Process Element 1: 4-Step Project Selection Process.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Tracy Lovell, PE A FOCUSED APPROACH TO SAFETY. Provide a Transportation System  Safe  Efficient  Environmentally Sound  Fiscally Responsible.
Advertisements

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.
A Comprehensive Study on Pavement Edge Line Implementation Presented by: Mark J. Morvant, P.E. Associate Director, Research Louisiana Transportation Research.
County Road Safety Plans Experiences with Development and Implementation Richard (Rick) West, PE Otter Tail County Public Works Director/County Engineer.
Jurisdictionally Blind Safety Roadway Departure Crash
Florida Department of Transportation, November 2009
Carver County Crash Data Overview Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, Severe is fatal and serious injury crashes (K+A). 6/15/ Year Crashes Carver.
Oregon Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Implementation Plan.
Caltrans Approval Process: Update Van Ness Avenue BRT Citizens Advisory Committee September 8 th, 2009.
Incorporating Safety into the Highway Design Process.
Safety Audit Components Safety assessment for risk Management.
Data Analysis and Use 3-1 NLTAPA Joint Safety Work Group Webinar November 18, 2013.
Module Use research and appropriate methods for selecting effective countermeasures and targeting diverse cultural and geographic populations. Countermeasure.
All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) Program Kevin J. Haas, P.E. Traffic Investigations Engineer, ODOT February 26, 2015.
Diagnosis of Sites with Potential for Safety Improvement 1 Module 4 Safety Analysis in a Data-limited, Local Agency Environment July 22, Boise,
Network Screening 1 Module 3 Safety Analysis in a Data-limited, Local Agency Environment: July 22, Boise, Idaho.
All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) Program Hot Spot ODOT Region 1 Kick-Off Meeting March 18, 2015.
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.
Intersection Design Spring 2015.
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.
City of Henderson Citizens Traffic Advisory Board NDOT SAFETY UPDATE.
Timothy E. Barnett, P.E., PTOE State Safety Operations Engineer Alabama Department of Transportation.
1 Ramsey County Review Meeting 1 June 21, Metro* County Crash Data Overview 2 Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, Severe is fatal and serious injury.
1 Washington County Review Meeting 1 June 21, 2012.
Role of SPFs in SafetyAnalyst Ray Krammes Federal Highway Administration.
1 September 28, 2011 Safety Strategies Workshop Brown County Faribault County Martin County Watonwan County.
NC Local Safety Partnership Selecting Interventions.
All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) Program Angela Kargel Region 2 Traffic Manager Oregon Department of Transportation January 2015.
University of Minnesota Intersection Decision Support Research - Results of Crash Analysis University of Minnesota Intersection Decision Support Research.
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.
1 Watonwan County Review Meeting 1 August 31, 2011 CH2M HILL, SRF Consulting Group, P.E. Services.
The Safety Problem Is Global The Safety Solution Is Local and Personal Business of Saving Lives.
Putting Together a Safety Program Kevin J. Haas, P.E.—Traffic Investigations Engineer Oregon Department of Transportation Traffic—Roadway Section (Salem,
Jurisdictionally Blind Safety Doug Bish OTCDC March 8th.
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)
Polk County Crash Data Overview Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, Severe is fatal and serious injury crashes (K+A). 6/1/ Year Crashes Polk.
1 Marshall County Review Meeting 1 June 25, 2012.
INTERSECTION WARNING SYSTEMS Jon Jackels Mn/DOT ITS Program Engineer Traffic Topics April 7, 2011.
1 Red Lake County Review Meeting 1 June 25, 2012.
ATP 2 Crash Data Overview Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, Severe is fatal and serious injury crashes (K+A). 6/1/ Year Crashes ATP 2 7,072.
2011 National Association of County Engineers Conference Mn/DOT County Roadway Safety Plans April 20, 2011 CH2M HILL, SRF Consulting Group, P.E. Services.
Oregon’s All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) Program Zahidul Siddique, Ph.D., PE, PTOE Oregon Department of Transportation October 26, st International.
AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan Development & Implementation Status 2004 Traffic Records Forum David M. Smith Senior Transportation Specialist, Office.
Impact of Intersection Angle on Safety HSIS Annual Liaison Meeting David Harkey, Bo Lan, Daniel Carter, Raghavan Srinivasan, Anusha Patel Nujjetty May.
ATP 1 County Road Safety Plan 1 Brad Estochen MnDOT Office of Traffic, Safety and Technology
1 THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL Michael S. Griffith Federal Highway Administration July 26 th, 2004.
1 Intersection Design CE 453 Lecture Intersections More complicated area for drivers Main function is to provide for change of direction Source.
1 Element 1: The Systemic Safety Project Selection Process Element 1: 4-Step Project Selection Process.
1 Element 1: The Systemic Safety Project Selection Process Element 1: 4-Step Project Selection Process.
6-1 Module 6: Group Activity Wright County Safety Review Identifying Opportunities for Making Roads Safer 6-1.
Rural Intersection Decision Support - Crash Analysis Rural Intersection Decision Support - Crash Analysis Presented at Pooled Fund Meeting April 19, 2004.
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.
1 The Highway Safety Manual Predictive Methods. 2 New Highway Safety Manual of 2010 ►Methodology is like that for assessing and assuring the adequacy.
1 Faribault County Review Meeting 1 August 31, 2011 CH2M HILL, SRF Consulting Group, P.E. Services.
1 Polk County Review Meeting 1 June 25, ATP 2 County Crash Data Overview 06/25/2012 Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, Severe is fatal and serious.
1 St. Louis County Review Meeting 1 August 29, 2011 CH2M HILL, SRF Consulting Group, P.E. Services.
Intersection Design Spring 2017.
Impact of Intersection Angle on Safety
Data-Driven Safety Analysis
Highway Safety Team Staff Meeting SMART Portal HSIP Application Demonstration Systemic Safety Improvement (SSI) November 21,2017.
Clark County, WA Safety Management Program
Contributing Factors for Focus Crash Types and Facility Types Raghavan Srinivasan University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center (UNC HSRC)
Presentation transcript:

1 Element 1: The Systemic Safety Project Selection Process Element 1: 4-Step Project Selection Process

Objective Identify risk factors commonly associated with target crash type(s) experienced across a system. Suggest a focus on severe crashes (fatal + serious injury) – Consistent with national safety practices – May minimize effort and needed resources 2 Element 1, Step 1: Identify Target Crash Types & Risk Factors

Outcome Gain an understanding of the systemic program’s focus – Type of Crash – Facility Type (i.e., location type) – Risk Factors 3 Element 1, Step 1: Identify Target Crash Types & Risk Factors

Recommended Minimum Data Crashes by system (state and local) Crash type (road departure, right angle, head-on rear end, turning, etc.) Facility type (freeway, expressway and conventional) Physical crash location description (urban/rural, intersection/segment, tangent/curve, topography, etc.) Description of location (topography, intersection elements, segment elements) 4 Element 1, Step 1: Identify Target Crash Types & Risk Factors

Potentially Useful Data (i.e., Risk Factors) Traffic volumes Some Roadway Features – Number of lanes – Shoulder type/width – Road edge features/quality – Number/type of access – Radius of horizontal curves – Density of horizontal curves – Speed limit – Medians Some Intersection Features – Number of approaches – Skew – Proximity to horizontal/vertical curves – Number of approach lanes – Signal timing – Proximity to railroad crossing – Traffic control devices – Presence of street lighting – Presence of commercial developments 5 Element 1, Step 1: Identify Target Crash Types & Risk Factors

Element 1: Step 1 6 Element 1, Step 1: Identify Target Crash Types & Risk Factors

Element 1: Step 1, Task 1 Select Focus Crash Type(s) Purpose: Identify the greatest potential to reduce fatalities and severe injuries. Suggestion: Identify crash type(s) representing the greatest number of severe crashes across system. Element 1: Step 1, Task 1 7

Element 1: Step 1, Task 1 Select Focus Crash Type(s) Why is it important to select a focus crash type(s)? There is no single countermeasure that is effective at addressing all crash types. Identifying a focus crash type(s) will help narrow down the list of countermeasures. 8 Q: A: Element 1: Step 1, Task 1

Element 1: Step 1, Task 1 Select Focus Crash Type(s) Resources: State or regional SHSP – AASHTO’s 22 Emphasis Areas Roadway Departure or Intersection Safety Implementation Plans Other applicable safety plans Statewide and regional crash data Element 1: Step 1, Task 1 9

Element 1: Step 1, Task 1 Select Focus Crash Type(s) Process: 1.Reference emphasis areas defined in approved safety plans (State SHSP). 2.Stratify crash data into emphasis areas. 3.Select focus crash type(s): – Emphasis areas with highest frequency crashes – Priority order of emphasis areas in plans – Agency preferences Element 1: Step 1, Task 1 10

Statewide Data by Safety Emphasis Area 11 Element 1: Step 1, Task 1 Illustration: Jurisdiction can make a difference

Region Data by Safety Emphasis Area 12 Element 1: Step 1, Task 1 Illustration: Consider impact of geography & topography

Element 1: Step 1, Task 1 Select Focus Crash Type(s) Possible Challenges for Thurston County: 1.Relatively few severe crashes?…difficult to identify focus crash type(s) 2.Urban and rural areas have distinctly different crash patterns? Element 1: Step 1, Task 1 13

Element 1: Step 1, Task 2 Select Focus Facilities Purpose: Determine locations on roadway network where focus crashes occur most frequently. Element 1: Step 1, Task 2 14

Element 1: Step 1, Task 2 Select Focus Facilities Why is it important to select focus facilities? There is no single countermeasure that is appropriate for all situations. Identifying a focus facility type will help narrow down the list of countermeasures. 15 Q: A: Element 1: Step 1, Task 2

Element 1: Step 1, Task 2 Select Focus Facilities Resources: Roadway Departure or Intersection Safety Implementation Plans Statewide and regional crash data Process: 1.Develop crash tree diagram. 2.Utilize diagram to identify and select focus facilities. Element 1: Step 1, Task 2 16

Greater Minnesota Crash Tree Diagram 17 5 Year Crashes 156,182 4,902 5 Year Crashes 156,182 4,902 State System 70,808 – 45% 2,000 – 41% State System 70,808 – 45% 2,000 – 41% CSAH/CR 36,716 – 24% 1,963 – 40% CSAH/CR 36,716 – 24% 1,963 – 40% Rural 22,630 – 62% 1,626 – 83% Rural 22,630 – 62% 1,626 – 83% Urban 14,086 – 38% 337 – 17% Urban 14,086 – 38% 337 – 17% All Way Stop 445 – 6% 5 – 3% All Way Stop 445 – 6% 5 – 3% Run off Road 7,891 – 67% 675 – 65% Run off Road 7,891 – 67% 675 – 65% On Curve 3,222 – 40% 339 – 50% On Curve 3,222 – 40% 339 – 50% Example All – % Severe – % Example All – % Severe – % Right Angle – 1,268 (47%), 37 (86%) “Other” – 252 (9%), 9 (21%) Left Turn – 268 (10%), 4 (9%) Rear End – 333 (12%), 3 (7%) Right Angle – 1,268 (47%), 37 (86%) “Other” – 252 (9%), 9 (21%) Left Turn – 268 (10%), 4 (9%) Rear End – 333 (12%), 3 (7%) Thru-Stop 2,697 – 37% 65 – 45% Thru-Stop 2,697 – 37% 65 – 45% Right Angle – 633 (27%), 15 (47%) Rear End – 799 (35%), 5 (16%) Left Turn – 375 (16%), 5 (16%) Head On – 100 (4%), 4 (13%) Right Angle – 633 (27%), 15 (47%) Rear End – 799 (35%), 5 (16%) Left Turn – 375 (16%), 5 (16%) Head On – 100 (4%), 4 (13%) Signalized 2,308 – 31% 32 – 22% Signalized 2,308 – 31% 32 – 22% Inters-Related 5,487 – 29% 463 – 30% Inters-Related 5,487 – 29% 463 – 30% Source: MnCMAT Crash Data, Severe is fatal and serious injury crashes (K+A). City, Twnshp, Other 48,658 – 31% 939 – 19% City, Twnshp, Other 48,658 – 31% 939 – 19% Inters-Related 7,332 – 52% 145 – 43% Inters-Related 7,332 – 52% 145 – 43% Not Inters-Related 5,177 – 37% 175 – 52% Not Inters-Related 5,177 – 37% 175 – 52% Run Off Road – 1,202 (23%), 69 (39%) Head On – 366 (7%), 27 (15%) “Other” – 540 (10%), 25 (14%) Rear End – 1,336 (26%), 17 (10%) Run Off Road – 1,202 (23%), 69 (39%) Head On – 366 (7%), 27 (15%) “Other” – 540 (10%), 25 (14%) Rear End – 1,336 (26%), 17 (10%) Animal 4,009 – 18% 60 – 4% Animal 4,009 – 18% 60 – 4% Not Inters-Related 11,849 – 64% 1,042 –66% Not Inters-Related 11,849 – 64% 1,042 –66% Head On, SS Opp. 751 – 6% 132 – 13% Head On, SS Opp. 751 – 6% 132 – 13% On Curve 247 – 33% 46 – 35% On Curve 247 – 33% 46 – 35% Unknown/Other 1,577 – 11% 17 – 5% Unknown/Other 1,577 – 11% 17 – 5% Unknown/Other 1,276 – 7% 61 – 4% Unknown/Other 1,276 – 7% 61 – 4% Other/Unknown 1,881 – 26% 43 – 30% Other/Unknown 1,881 – 26% 43 – 30% Right Angle – 849 (34%), 122 (56%) “Other” – 464 (18%), 33 (15%) Run Off Road – 342 (14%), 21 (10%) Left Turn – 184 (7%), 10 (5%) Right Angle – 849 (34%), 122 (56%) “Other” – 464 (18%), 33 (15%) Run Off Road – 342 (14%), 21 (10%) Left Turn – 184 (7%), 10 (5%) Thru-Stop 2,511 – 46% 216 – 47% Thru-Stop 2,511 – 46% 216 – 47% Run Off Road – 999 (38%), 95 (42%) Right Angle – 268 (10%), 39 (17%) “Other” – 303 (12%), 29 (13%) Head On – 112 (4%), 21 (9%) Run Off Road – 999 (38%), 95 (42%) Right Angle – 268 (10%), 39 (17%) “Other” – 303 (12%), 29 (13%) Head On – 112 (4%), 21 (9%) Other/Unknown 2,600 – 47% 228 – 49% Other/Unknown 2,600 – 47% 228 – 49% Not Animal 18,616 – 82% 1,566 – 96% Not Animal 18,616 – 82% 1,566 – 96% All Way Stop 164 – 3% 15 – 3% All Way Stop 164 – 3% 15 – 3% Signalized 209 – 4% 4 – 1% Signalized 209 – 4% 4 – 1% -Region’s 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 – NO Metro Element 1: Step 1, Task 2

Element 1: Step 1, Task 2 Select Focus Facilities Suggest Minimum Crash Tree Combinations: – Location (urban / rural) – Ownership (state and local) – Segment or intersection – Segment type (freeway, multilane, two-lane, one-way) – Intersection control type (signal, stop, yield) Additional Crash Tree Combinations: – Tangent or curve – High- or low-speed – Presence of street lighting – District or regions 18 Element 1: Step 1, Task 2

Element 1: Step 1, Task 3 Identify and Evaluate Risk Factors Purpose: Document the most common characteristics of the crash locations to further define the facility types selected from the crash tree in Step 1, Task 2. Element 1: Step 1, Task 3 19

Element 1: Step 1, Task 3 Identify and Evaluate Risk Factors Why are risk factors needed? Risk factors help differentiate which locations may have the greatest potential for a future focus crash type. These locations become the priority for where to deploy countermeasures. 20 Q: A: Element 1: Step 1, Task 3

Element 1: Step 1, Task 3 Identify and Evaluate Risk Factors Resources: Crash data at statewide and regional levels Road and intersection data Highway Safety Manual FHWA’s Crash Modification Factor Clearinghouse Published research documenting the effectiveness of strategies Element 1: Step 1, Task 3 21

Element 1: Step 1, Task 3 Identify and Evaluate Risk Factors Process: 1.Determine potential risk factors considering: – Ability to indicate greater potential for a future severe focus crash type – Availability of data element in existing databases or the ability to quickly gather data if not already available – Quality of data element if contained in existing databases – Applicability of data element to focus crash type and facility type Element 1: Step 1, Task 3 22

Element 1: Step 1, Task 3 Identify and Evaluate Risk Factors Process: 2. Evaluate potential risk factors for a relationship to future crash potential: – Formal statistical analysis to determine if risk factor associated with crash frequency – Compare proportions…proportion of all locations with the characteristic versus proportion severe crash locations with (descriptive statistics) – Review published research to identify Crash Modification Factors 3. Select risk factors. Element 1: Step 1, Task 3 23

Evaluation of Segment Traffic Volume as Potential Risk Factor Element 1: Step 1, Task 3 24

Evaluation of Curve Radius as Potential Risk Factor 25 Element 1: Step 1, Task 3

Evaluation of Access Density as Potential Risk Factor Element 1: Step 1, Task 3 26