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

2.  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. 3

4. 4

5. 5

6. 6

7. 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.

8. CALIBRATION OF THE HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL TO FLORIDA CONDITIONS

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

10. 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. 11 FDOT PRIORITY FACILITY TYPES

12. 12 COMPUTE CALIBRATION FACTOR

13. 13 RURAL TWO-LANE ROADS  N = AADT × L × 365 × 10 -6 × 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. 14 RURAL TWO-LANE ROADS Rural 2 Lane Calibration Factor 2005200620072008 KAB 1.3521.3751.2441.220 1.3631.235 KABC 1.0631.0711.0270.982 1.0671.007

15. 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)-8.8370.958 4-lane fatal and injury (KABC)-8.5050.874

16. 16 RURAL MULTILANE DIVIDED ROADS Rural 4 Lane Divided Calibration Factor 2005200620072008 KAB 0.7770.7600.7460.695 0.7680.721 KABC 0.7240.7030.7080.671 0.7130.689

17. 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. 18 URBAN 2 LANE UNDIVIDED Urban 2 Lane Undivided Calibration Factor 2005200620072008 KABC 1.1031.0091.1390.947 1.0571.044

19. 19 URBAN 2 LANE WITH TWLTL Urban 2 Lane with TWLTL Calibration Factor 2005200620072008 KABC 0.9161.1841.1051.073 1.0511.089

20. 20 URBAN 4 LANE DIVIDED ARTERIALS Urban 4 Lane Divided Calibration Factor 2005200620072008 KABC 1.7581.6371.6811.609 1.6971.646

21. 21 URBAN 4 LANE UNDIVIDED Urban 4 Lane Undivided Calibration Factor 2005200620072008 KABC 0.6270.7430.7770.697 0.6850.738

22. 22 URBAN 4 LANE WITH TWLTL Urban 4 Lane with TWLTL Calibration Factor 2005200620072008 KABC 0.7490.7650.7350.708 0.7440.698

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

24. 2007-2008 CALIBRATION SUMMARY

25. 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. 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. 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. 28 SAMPLE PILOT PROJECT

29. 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

30.  Apply the appropriate SPF  N = AADT × L × 365 × 10 –6 × e (–0.312)  = 17,300 × 0.163 × 365 × 10 –6 × e (–0.312) = 0.753 crashes/year 30 SAMPLE PILOT PROJECT

31.  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 – 1.0) x 0.40 + 1.0 = 1.0  2. CMF 2r = (CMF wra x CMF tra – 1.0) x p ra + 1.0 =  = (1.15 x 1.0 – 1.0) x 0.70 + 1.0 = 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

32.  4. CMF 4r = 1.06 + 3(SV - 0.02) =  = 1.06 + 3(0.10 - 0.02) = 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

33.  10. CMF 10r = 33 SAMPLE PILOT PROJECT e (-0.6869 + 0.0668 x RHR) e (-0.4865) = e (-0.6869 + 0.0668 x 2) e (-0.4865) = 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).

34.  N predicted-rs = 0.753 x 3.41 x 1.01 = 2.59 crashes/year  Annual KABC Cost of Crashes (existing conditions)  Fatal = 0.013 x 2.59 x $6,380,000 = $214,815  Incap. = 0.054 x 2.59 x $521,768 = $72,974  Nonincap. = 0.109 x 2.59 x $104,052 = $29,375  Poss. Injury = 0.145 x 2.59 x $63,510 = $23,851  ANNUAL CRASH COST (existing conditions)= $341,015 34 SAMPLE PILOT PROJECT Note: crash costs from STATE SAFETY OFFICE BULLETIN 0-01 or ROADWAY DESIGN BULLETIN 10-09

35.  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 – 1.0) x 0.40 + 1.0 = 1.0  2. CMF 2r = (CMF wra x CMF tra – 1.0) x p ra + 1.0 =  = (1.15 x 1.0 – 1.0) x 0.70 + 1.0 = 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

36.  4. CMF 4r = 1.06 + 3(SV - 0.02) =  = 1.06 + 3(0.10 - 0.10) = 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

37.  10. CMF 10r = 37 SAMPLE PILOT PROJECT e (-0.6869 + 0.0668 x RHR) e (-0.4865) = e (-0.6869 + 0.0668 x 2) e (-0.4865) = 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).

38.  N predicted-rs = 0.753 x 2.06 x 1.01 = 1.57 crashes/year  Annual KABC Cost of Crashes (build conditions)  Fatal = 0.013 x 1.57 x $6,380,000 = $130,216  Incap. = 0.054 x 1.57 x $521,768 = $44,235  Nonincap. = 0.109 x 1.57 x $104,052 = $17,806  Poss. Injury = 0.145 x 1.57 x $63,510 = $14,458  ANNUAL CRASH COST (existing conditions)= $206,715 38 SAMPLE PILOT PROJECT Note: crash costs from STATE SAFETY OFFICE BULLETIN 0-01 or ROADWAY DESIGN BULLETIN 10-09

39.  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. 0.08994 x 821,748 = 73,908 107,300 1.45: 1

40. 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. 41 THE NEW HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL OF 2010 Questions?