Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

17TCS Systemic Safety Analysis: A comprehensive method for safety planning and implementations

264 views

Published on

Instructors: Beth Wemple, HDR Reginald Souleyrette, University of Kentucky Doug Bish, ODOT Brian Chandler, Leidos

Published in: Education
  • Make 16,000 Projects With Step By Step Plans, ...even if you don't have a large workshop or expensive tools! ➽➽ https://url.cn/xFeBN0O4
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Intimacy has never been so much fun! Buy the clinically proven men's natural supplement that helped guys increase satisfaction by 71.43%! ▲▲▲ https://bit.ly/30G1ZO1
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

17TCS Systemic Safety Analysis: A comprehensive method for safety planning and implementations

  1. 1. Portland Transportation Summit September 11, 2017
  2. 2. usRAP Sponsors • Federal Highway Administration – has highlighted usRAP protocols as data-driven safety tools in Every Day Counts 3 • Roadway Safety Foundation – working with FHWA to encourage use of usRAP’s protocols and provide technical support to users – Contact: Bruce Hamilton (brucehamilton@roadwaysafety.org)
  3. 3. usRAP Objectives • Benchmark safety of road segments • Allocate resources based on risks  Infrastructure  Enforcement • Inform and provide guidance to motorists • Focus on reducing risk of fatal and serious injury crashes • Foster collaboration
  4. 4. usRAP Protocols • Risk Mapping • Star Ratings • Safer Roads Investment Plans
  5. 5. Risk Maps • Illustrate crash risk levels for road segments using four different risk measures • Roads are color-coded based on crash risk levels • Maps are prepared using data on crash history and traffic volume levels • Homogeneous road segments • Segment length sufficient to provide meaningful results
  6. 6. Map 1 – Crash Density • Dark green (40% of roadway length) – lowest risk • Green (25% of roadway length) • Yellow (20% of roadway length) • Red (10% of roadway length) • Black (5% of roadway length) – highest risk
  7. 7. A World Free of High-risk Roads Map 2 – Crash Rate
  8. 8. Map 3 – Crash Rate Ratio
  9. 9. Map 4 – Potential Savings
  10. 10. Supplemental Maps
  11. 11. Star Ratings • Star ratings are assigned based on presence or absence of road design and traffic control features related to safety • Up to 78 safety-related design and traffic control features are considered • Star ratings are in 1 to 5 scale: – 5-star road (full range of known safety-related design and traffic control features) – 1-star road (limited safety-related design and traffic control features)
  12. 12. Star Ratings • Separate star ratings by user type: – vehicle occupants – motorcyclists – pedestrians – bicyclists
  13. 13. Key Safety-Related Roadway Characteristics • No. of lanes • One-way/two-way • Roadway width/lane width • Shoulder width • Horizontal alignment (esp. curve radius) • Vertical alignment (esp. grades) • Delineation • Road surface condition • Sidewalks
  14. 14. Key Safety-Related Roadway Characteristics • Roadside severity • Shoulder rumble strips • Access point density • Median type • Intersection type • Pedestrian facilities • Bike facilities • Area type (rural/semi-urban/urban) • Land use (commercial/residential)
  15. 15. Key Safety-Related Roadway Characteristics • Quality of curve • Quality of intersection • Quality of pedestrian crossing
  16. 16. Key Operational and Traffic Control Characteristics • Traffic volume • Motorcycle percentage • Pedestrian flow • Bicycle flow • Intersecting road volume • Speed limit • Mean traffic speed • 85th percentile traffic speed
  17. 17. Road Inspection Videos
  18. 18. Coding Safety-Related Road Attributes
  19. 19. Road Protection Scores Vehicle occupants Run off road Head on Intersection Run off road Head on Intersection Along Across Along Across Intersection Motorcyclists Pedestrians Bicyclists Risk factors Risk factors Risk factors Risk factors Risk factors Risk factors Risk factors Risk factors Risk factors Risk factors Risk factors Road users Crash types Road attributes
  20. 20. Road Protection Scores Vehicle occupants Run off road Head on Intersection Speed Roadside severity – left Roadside severity – right Lane width Paved shoulder Curvature Curvature quality Delineation Shoulder rumble Road condition Road users Crash types Road attributes Speed Median type Number of lanes Lane width Curvature Curvature quality Overtaking demand Road condition Speed Intersection type Intersecting road volume Intersection quality Minor access density
  21. 21. Road Protection Scores Along Across Pedestrians Speed Sidewalk provision – left Sidewalk provision – right Side friction Speed Number of lanes Median type Crossing facilities Crossing facilities quality Road users Crash types Road attributes
  22. 22. Road Protection Scores Along Across Intersection Bicyclists Speed Roadside severity – left Roadside severity – right Lane width Paved shoulder Curvature Curve quality Delineation Road condition Facilitates for bikes Side friction Speed Crossing facilities Number of lanes Median type Crossing facilities Crossing facilities quality Speed Intersection type Intersecting road volume Intersection quality Minor access density Road users Crash types Road attributes
  23. 23. A World Free of High-risk Roads
  24. 24. A World Free of High-risk Roads
  25. 25. A World Free of High-risk Roads
  26. 26. ViDA Software • Performs network-level safety planning analysis to develop star ratings and safer roads investment plans • Web-based and easily accessed on-line • Software usage is free for all highway agencies and their consultants • Training is needed to use the software properly • Training is provided at regular intervals free of charge 8
  27. 27. ViDA Software • Software uploads and processes input data for most roadway systems within a few minutes • Displays results on-screen and in downloadable Microsoft Excel® files • No detailed site-specific crash data needed • Network-wide crash data is useful for calibration 9
  28. 28. ViDA Analysis Process Coded Roadway Attribute Data Safer Roads Investment Plans Road Safety Scores Star Ratings
  29. 29. Summary of Star Ratings for a Road Network Car Users Motorcycle Users Bicycle Users Pedestrian Users Star Rating Length (km's) % Length (km's) % Length (km's) % Length (km's) % 0 mi 0% 26 mi 7% 0 mi 0% 1 mi 0% 10 mi 3% 6 mi 2% 9 mi 2% 9 mi 2% 100 mi 27% 24 mi 6% 25 mi 7% 326 mi 88% 164 mi 43% 114 mi 30% 204 mi 55% 24 mi 6% 100 mi 27% 164 mi 44% 136 mi 36% 0 mi 0% 0 mi 0% 40 mi 11% 0 mi 0% 14 mi 4% TOTAL 374 mi 100% 374 mi 100% 374 mi 100% 374 mi 100%
  30. 30. Example of Star Rating Variation Along a Road Section
  31. 31. SAFER ROADS INVESTMENT PLANS
  32. 32. What is a Safer Roads Investment Plan? • Safer Road Investment Plan: A plan that suggests specific safety improvements at specific locations on a selected roadway network • Input Data: Roadway and traffic characteristics for each 330-ft (100-m) segment of the roadway network • Processing Software: web-based ViDA software • Output: a safety improvement plan for your road network
  33. 33. How Can a Safer Roads Investment Plan Help Your Agency? • Plan focuses attention of the priority locations for safety improvement on your road system and the appropriate type of safety improvement(s) for each location • Requires a 30-minute investment in coding of on roadway attributes per mile of road • All results are based on benefit-cost analysis— only improvements that meet a minimum benefit- cost ratio that you specify are suggested 7
  34. 34. Who Can Benefit Most from Safer Roads Investment Plans? • Highway agencies without good crash data – no crash data available – manual crash reports but no automated data files – automated crash data files, but no location data other than verbal descriptions • Highway agencies without good crash analysis systems • Highway agencies with good road inventory data • Highway agencies with video coverage of its road system – in the age of Google Street View® and Bing Streetside®, that’s almost everyone
  35. 35. What Does a Safer Roads Investment Plan Provide? • Safer roads investment plan for a road network includes: – specific countermeasures to be implemented – specific implementation locations – quantitative cost estimates – quantitative safety benefits (in crashes reduced and dollars) – cost-effectiveness measures – benefit-cost ratios – all countermeasures meet a minimum benefit-cost ratio specified by the user – output in the form of tables, maps, and Excel spreadsheets
  36. 36. Safer Roads Investment Plans • Considers nearly 70 countermeasures • Each countermeasure is reviewed for each 300- ft (100-m) road segment. • A countermeasure is “triggered” if it makes engineering sense for the location • Once a countermeasure is “triggered” economic analysis is performed
  37. 37. Safer Roads Investment Plans • Countermeasures are retained in plan for a given 330-ft (100–m) road segment if: – countermeasure is not already installed – BCR exceeds minimum BCR specified by user – countermeasure is compatible with other cost- effective countermeasures for the same location – countermeasure is not overridden by a mutually exclusive countermeasure for the same location that is more cost-effective – countermeasure is consistent with countermeasures recommended for adjacent road segments
  38. 38. Safer Roads Investment Plans • All analyses are based on consideration of fatalities and serious injuries • Serious injuries are defined as Levels 3 through 5 on the Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) – corresponds to A injuries and all or most B injuries on the KABCO scale • usRAP bases ratio of serious injuries to fatalities on actual crash data or assumes a 10:1 ratio
  39. 39. Safer Roads Investment Plans • User provides data or best available estimate for network-wide average fatalities per year • Program logic decides how to allocate those crashes to the various road segments on the network • Results can be reviewed/verified with download file
  40. 40. Safer Roads Investment Programs for Alternative Investment Levels Minimum BCR K & A Crashes Saved (20 yr) Pres Value of Benefits ($ million) Cost (20 yr) ($ million) Program BCR 1 317 238.3 90.9 2.6 2 252 189.8 42.6 4.5 3 206 154.8 28.8 5.4 4 160 120.1 18.8 6.4 5 114 85.8 10.8 8.0
  41. 41. A World Free of High-risk Roads CODING FOR STAR RATING
  42. 42. No-brainer … hardly ever changes
  43. 43. SOME ARE NOT TOO DIFFICULT, BUT CHANGE OFTEN
  44. 44. Each of the following attributes is recorded for every 300-ft (100-m) road segment If multiple codes apply to a given attribute, use the code listed first in the usRAP Coding Manual
  45. 45. 5.27 Roadside Severity Object No object Code = 17 No object within 65 ft of the road
  46. 46. Non-frangible structure/bridge or building Code = 13 Structures that will cause a rapid deceleration when hit 5.27 Roadside Severity Object
  47. 47. Traffic barrier – concrete Code = 2 Concrete traffic barrier sufficient to restrain most cars and small vehicles 5.27 Roadside Severity Object
  48. 48. Traffic barrier – metal Code = 1 Semi-rigid metal traffic barrier (e.g., guardrail) sufficient to restrain most cars and small vehicles (not cable barrier) 5.27 Roadside Severity Object Slide 101
  49. 49. Traffic barrier – cable Cable traffic barrier sufficient to restrain most cars and small vehicles Code = 4 5.27 Roadside Severity Object
  50. 50. SOME ARE MORE CHALLENGING
  51. 51. 5.26 Roadside Severity Distance Objects with effective distance of 0 to 3 ft Distance to object 0 to <3 ft Code = 1
  52. 52. 5.26 Roadside Severity Distance Distance to object 3 to 15 ft Code = 2 Object with effective distance of 3 to 15 ft
  53. 53. 5.26 Roadside Severity Distance Distance to object 15 to 30 ft Code = 3 Object with effective distance of 15 to 30 ft
  54. 54. 5.26 Roadside Severity Distance to object > 30 ft Object with effective distance of >30 ft Code = 4
  55. 55. 5.26 Roadside Severity Distance Definition of “effective distance”: • If a severe object is located on a steep embankment foreslope (downslope), just below the upper threshold of a distance category, code the next higher distance category • If a severe object is located on a steep cut slope (upslope), just beyond the upper threshold of a distance category, code the next lower distance category
  56. 56. Cliff Code = 10 Cliff or equivalent roadside feature that will result in certain fatality regardless of speed if encountered by an errant vehicle… Use this code sparingly – typical roadside slopes and drops are NOT cliffs. 5.27 Roadside Severity Object
  57. 57. Tree >4 in Code = 11 Trees with diameter greater than 4 in 5.27 Roadside Severity Object
  58. 58. Non-frangible sign/post/pole with diameter ≥ 4 in Code = 12 Examples are: •Non-frangible lighting columns •Non-frangible posts greater than 4 inch diameter 5.27 Roadside Severity Object
  59. 59. 5.27 Roadside Severity Object Unprotected barrier end Code = 15 Aggressive ends to Traffic barriers for example: Ramped ends, Unprotected ends, Sharp ends
  60. 60. Aggressive vertical face Aggressive vertical face, such as a rock cut Code = 5 5.27 Roadside Severity Object
  61. 61. Upwards slope -- (15° to 75°) Code = 6 Cut face of at least 6-ft height that is likely to cause a vehicle to roll over. Examples are: •Earth embankments •Grass-covered embankments Irregular rock faces should be recorded using Code 5 5.27 Roadside Severity Object Slide 94
  62. 62. Deep drainage ditch Ditch or culvert of material, depth, or steep angled face likely to result in severe injury to vehicle occupants. Rule of thumb Only record a ditch if most of the vehicle would drop into the ditch. Code = 8 5.27 Roadside Severity Object
  63. 63. Downwards slope (> -15°) Code = 9 Downwards slope from the roadway with: >1:4 slope & drop >1m Rule of thumb A slope should be recorded if a vehicle is likely to roll over on it 5.27 Roadside Severity Object
  64. 64. Large boulders ≥ 8 in high Code = 16 Rocks higher than 8 in 5.27 Roadside Severity Object
  65. 65. Frangible structure or building Code = 14 Structures that will not cause a rapid deceleration when hit 5.27 Roadside Severity Object
  66. 66. Traffic barrier - motorcycle friendly Code = 3 Traffic barrier designed specifically to restrain motorcycles without injury to the rider NOTE: Use ‘motorcyclist friendly barrier’ sparingly, if at all. There are few motorcyclist friendly barriers presently in use. 5.27 Roadside Severity Object
  67. 67. Upwards slope - (>= 75°) Code = 7 Cut face of at least 2m height that a vehicle is likely to slide along when struck. Examples are: •Earth embankments •Grass-covered embankments Irregular rock faces should be recorded using Code 5 5.27 Roadside Severity Object
  68. 68. 5.27xxx Roadside Severity Giant birds Code = 99X Bird which will break windshield Slide 105
  69. 69. THERE ARE A LOT MORE …
  70. 70. 78 attributes, 247+ pages of training
  71. 71. yep
  72. 72. 11 ATTRIBUTES MOST RELEVANT TO BIKES/PEDS?
  73. 73. 5.15 Observed Bicycle Flow 5.16 Observed Pedestrian Flow Across the Road 5.17a/b Observed Pedestrian Flow Along the Road – Left and Right 5.19a/b Land Use – Left and Right 5.20 Area Type 5.46 Pedestrian Crossing Facility 5.47 Pedestrian Crossing Quality 5.48 Pedestrian Crossing Facility – Side Road 5.49 Pedestrian Fencing 5.56 Bicycle Facility 5.59 School Zone Warning 5.53a/b Sidewalk – Left and right 5.60 School Zone Crossing Guard Also, speed limit and AADT
  74. 74. 5.15 Observed Bicycle Flow Very High Code = 6 8 + bicycles observed within a 300- ft (100-m) road segment
  75. 75. 5.15 Observed Bicycle Flow 6 to 7 bicycles observed within a 300-ft (100-m) road segment High Code = 5
  76. 76. 5.15 Observed Bicycle Flow 4 to 5 bicycles observed within a 300-ft (100-m) road segment Medium Code = 4
  77. 77. 5.15 Observed Bicycle Flow 2 to 3 bicycles observed within a 300-ft (100-m) road segment Low Code = 3
  78. 78. 5.15 Observed Bicycle Flow 1 to 2 bicycles observed within a 300-ft (100-m) road segment or evidence of bicycling activity Evidence of bicycling activity could include: • Marked bicycle lanes • Sharrow markings • Bicycle-oriented signing Very Low Code = 2
  79. 79. 5.15 Observed Bicycle Flow No bicycles present and no evidence of bicycling activity None Code = 1
  80. 80. 5.16 Observed Pedestrian Flow Across the Road Very High Code = 6 8 + pedestrians observed crossing the road within a 300-ft (100-m) road segment
  81. 81. 5.16 Observed Pedestrian Flow Across the Road 5 to 7 pedestrians observed crossing the road within a 300-ft (100-m) road segment High Code = 5
  82. 82. 5.16 Observed Pedestrian Flow Across the Road 3 to 5 pedestrians observed crossing the road within a 300-ft (100-m) road segment Medium Code = 4
  83. 83. 5.16 Observed Pedestrian Flow Across the Road Low Code = 3 2 to 3 pedestrians observed crossing the road within a 300-ft (100-m) road segment
  84. 84. 5.16 Observed Pedestrian Flow Across the Road 1 to 2 pedestrians observed crossing the road within a 300-ft (100-m) road segment or evidence of pedestrian crossing activity Code =2 Evidence of pedestrian crossing activity could include: • Marked crosswalk • Pedestrian crossing signs • Side street entering the road being coded • Mailbox on one side of the road and residence or business on the other Very Low
  85. 85. 5.16 Observed Pedestrian Flow Across the Road No pedestrians observed crossing the road within a 300-ft (100-m) road segment and no evidence of pedestrian crossing activity None Code = 1
  86. 86. 5.17 Observed Pedestrian Flow Along the Road Very high Code = 6 8 + pedestrians observed walking along the left side of the road within a 300-ft (100-km) road segment
  87. 87. 5.17 Observed Pedestrian Flow Along the Road High Code = 5 5 to 7 pedestrians observed walking along the left side of the road within a 300-ft (100-km) road segment
  88. 88. 5.17 Observed Pedestrian Flow Along the Road Medium Code = 4 3 to 5 pedestrians observed walking along the left side of the road within a 300-ft (100-km) road segment
  89. 89. 5.17 Observed Pedestrian Flow Along the Road 2 to 3 pedestrians observed walking along the left side of the road within a 300-ft (100-km) road segment Low Code = 3
  90. 90. 5.17 Observed Pedestrian Flow Along the Road Very Low Code = 2 1 pedestrian observed walking along the left side of the road within a 300-ft (100-km) road segment or evidence of pedestrian travel along the left side of the road Evidence of pedestrian travel along the road could include: • Presence of a sidewalk • Informal footpath • Marked crosswalks at side streets • Signing for pedestrians or children
  91. 91. 5.17 Observed Pedestrian Flow Along the Road None Code = 1 No pedestrians observed walking along the left side of the road and no evidence of pedestrian travel along the left side of the road
  92. 92. 5.19 Land Use Educational Code = 6 Schools, colleges and universities
  93. 93. 5.19 Land Use Commercial Code = 4 Shops or other commercial activity, or any area where high intensity pedestrian activity is evident (whether commercial development is actually visible or not) Slide 52
  94. 94. 5.19 Land Use Industrial and manufacturing Code = 7 Industrial, manufacturing, or factory facilities. Areas of concentrated employment.
  95. 95. 5.19 Land Use Residential Code = 3 Residential / housing area (including both single-family and multiple-family residences)
  96. 96. 5.19 Land Use Farming and agricultural Code = 2 Land used for farming or agricultural activities, including the raising of either crops or animals
  97. 97. 5.19 Land Use Undeveloped areas Code = 1 Open land without shops, industry, housing, or farming
  98. 98. 5.20 Area Type Urban / rural town or village Code = 2 Continuous development for more than 300 ft Includes both urban areas and rural towns and villages
  99. 99. 5.20 Area Type Rural / open area Code = 1 Area without urban development and not within a rural town or village Where roadside development does not impact the road (i.e., if a fence separates development from the road), the area should be classified as rural
  100. 100. Refuge only Code = 6 No crossing is marked but a purpose-built central refuge is provided for pedestrians 5.46 Pedestrian Crossing Facility
  101. 101. The crossing is marked but has no central refuge Unsignalized marked crossing without refuge Code = 5 5.46 Pedestrian Crossing Facility
  102. 102. Unsignalized marked crossing with refuge Code = 4 The crossing is marked and split with a purpose built central refuge 5.46 Pedestrian Crossing Facility
  103. 103. Signalized crossing without refuge Code = 3 Traffic signals control both pedestrian and vehicle movements 5.46 Pedestrian Crossing Facility
  104. 104. Signalized crossing with refuge Code = 2 Traffic signals control pedestrian and vehicle movements, and the crossing is split with a purpose-built central refuge 5.46 Pedestrian Crossing Facility
  105. 105. Grade separated facility Code = 1 The crossing is physically separated by grade (over or under the road) and does not bring pedestrians into conflict with traffic 5.46 Pedestrian Crossing Facility
  106. 106. Unsignalized raised marked crossing without a refuge Code = 15 5.46 Pedestrian Crossing Facility
  107. 107. No facility Code = 7 No provision for crossing pedestrians. 5.46 Pedestrian Crossing Facility
  108. 108. 5.47 Pedestrian Crossing Quality Poor Code = 2 Rapid or unexpected speed adjustments may be needed to avoid risk to pedestrians using the crossing
  109. 109. 5.47 Pedestrian Crossing Quality Adequate Code = 1 Signing, markings, and sight distance enable approaching drivers to be aware in good time of the presence of the crossing
  110. 110. 5.47 Pedestrian Crossing Quality Not applicable Code = 3 No pedestrian crossing present
  111. 111. 5.49 Pedestrian Fencing Not present Code = 1 No pedestrian fencing present or fencing present that is not sufficient to stop pedestrian crossing flow
  112. 112. 5.48 Pedestrian Crossing Facility – Side Road Pedestrian Crossing Facility – Side Road is used to record the presence of purpose-built pedestrian crossing facilities for pedestrians crossing a side road Notes: If pedestrian crossings on two or more side road legs are present at an intersection, only one is recorded The same categories and codes are used as for Pedestrian Crossing Facility – Inspected Road. 6 Refuge only 5 Unsignalized marked crossing without refuge 4 Unsignalized marked crossing with refuge 3 signalized without refuge 2 signalized with refuge 1 Grade separated facility 15 Unsignalized raised marked crossing without refuge 7 No facility Slide 114
  113. 113. 5.49 Pedestrian Fencing Fencing present sufficient to stop pedestrian crossing flow. Present Code = 2
  114. 114. 5.53 Sidewalk No discernible sidewalk is provided None Code = 5 Slide 116
  115. 115. 5.53 Sidewalk Sidewalk separated from traveled way by no more than 3 ft, including paved shoulder, with no barrier provided. Paved shoulders are not coded as sidewalks because these is a separate attribute for paved shoulders Sidewalk adjacent to traffic; 0 to 3 ft separation from traffic with no physical barrier Code = 4 Slide 117
  116. 116. 5.53 Sidewalk Sidewalk separated from traveled way by 3 to 10 ft, with no barrier provided 3 to 10 ft separation from traffic with no barrier Code = 3 Slide 118
  117. 117. 5.53 Sidewalk Sidewalk separated from traveled way by at more than 10 ft with no barrier provided Greater than 10 ft separation from traffic with no barrier Code = 2 Slide 119
  118. 118. 5.53 Sidewalk Sidewalk separated from road by a barrier sufficient to restrain a vehicle traveling at the posted speed limit from entering the pedestrian facility Curbs, while discouraging traffic from passing over them, do little to prevent road traffic from entering the sidewalk, unless specifically designed to do so; thus, curbs are not a physical barrier Physical barrier Slide 120
  119. 119. 5.53 Sidewalk Observation or evidence of pedestrian flow along the road using an informal path separated from the traveled way by less than 3 ft This code may be used when an unpaved shoulder (but no paved shoulder) is present Informal path 0 to 3 ft from traveled way Code = 7 Slide 121
  120. 120. 5.53 Sidewalk Observation or evidence of pedestrian flow along the road using an informal path separated from the traveled way by at least 3 ft Informal path ≥ 3 ft from roadway Code = 6 Slide 122
  121. 121. 5.56 Bicycle Facility No specific provisions for bicycles None Code = 4
  122. 122. 5.56 Bicycle Facility Signed shared roadway Code = 6 A roadway with normal cross section that has been identified by signing as a preferred bicycle route Slide 232
  123. 123. 5.56 Bicycle Facility Extra wide curb lane (≥ 14 ft) Code = 5 Outside or curb lane is greater than or equal 14 ft in width to provide for shared bicycle and motor vehicle traffic Slide 233
  124. 124. 5.56 Bicycle Facility On-road bicycle lane Code = 3 Dedicated bicycle lane separated from traffic only by lane marking on roadway or by < 3 ft of raised or paved surface Slide 234
  125. 125. 5.56 Bicycle Facility Off-road shared-use path Code = 7 An off-road path provided for use by both bicycles and pedestrians Slide 235
  126. 126. 5.56 Bicycle Facility Off-road bicycle path Code = 2 Bicycle path separated from motor vehicle traffic by more than 3 ft of raised or paved surface Slide 236
  127. 127. 5.56 Bicycle Facility Off-road bicycle path with barrier Code =1 Segregated bicycle path separated from motor vehicle traffic by a physical barrier or located at least 30 ft from the road The physical barrier must be sufficient to restrain a vehicle traveling at the posted speed limit from entering the bicycle facility Slide 237
  128. 128. 5.59 School Zone Warning No school zone warning Code = 3 School zone with static signs or road markings Code = 2 School zone with flashing beacons Code = 1 Not applicable (no school at this location) Code = 4 Slide 130
  129. 129. 5.60 School Zone Crossing Guard School zone with no crossing guard Code = 2 School zone with crossing guard present at school start and finish times Code = 1 Not applicable (no school at this location) Code = 3 Slide 131
  130. 130. RATING CAN BE SUBJECTIVE…
  131. 131. GROUP EXERCISE
  132. 132. Rating Form and Instructions
  133. 133. Street View Images
  134. 134. Street View Images
  135. 135. Street View Images
  136. 136. Street View Images
  137. 137. Street View Images
  138. 138. Street View Images
  139. 139. Street View Images
  140. 140. Street View Images
  141. 141. Street View Images
  142. 142. Your results
  143. 143. ViDA Data Management/Quality Assurance Reg Souleyrette usRAP Team Univ. Of KY
  144. 144. Outline – ViDA Data Management/Quality Assurance Training in Safety Rating • QA review before the coding process • QA review during the coding process • QA review after the coding process • Pre-processing of data prior to analysis
  145. 145. Road rating training • usRAP inspection manual • How to use software • Practice road length • Peer reviews • Supervisor reviews Training in Safety Rating
  146. 146. By the end of the training, the coders must: Training in Safety Rating • understand what usRAP is and aims to achieve, including the purpose of Star Ratings and Safer Roads Investment Plans • be familiar with the road attributes and categories that must be recorded • know how to use the software to code roads • be able to consistently code roads with a high level of accuracy • 7-14 hours (intro, manual, software)
  147. 147. Target Level of Accuracy Training in Safety Rating
  148. 148. Before the coding … • All coders rate same section of road • Practice • Comparison (peer, trainer) • Up to 8 hours Training in Safety Rating
  149. 149. QA review during the coding process • Fatigue • Quality review • Interruptions • Data management Training in Safety Rating
  150. 150. Road rating/coding… human factors • Perception (volume, expectation, contrast) • Interpretation (workload, motivation, mistakes) • Response (coding, saving) • 4-6 coders per 2000 miles • 2-7 mph range Training in Safety Rating
  151. 151. Example: slope Training in Safety Rating
  152. 152. Recommend Reviews • Peer to Peer • Encourage discussion • Cross-check each other • Progress Reviews • Supervisor checks • Target 10% review • External Reviews (opt) • Independent • Target 10% review Training in Safety Rating
  153. 153. Typical errors • duplicate records • missing sections not coded (gaps between coded sections) • missing data in some attributes only Training in Safety Rating
  154. 154. Documentation • Errors, by coder • Results of peer reviews • Weekly progress report • Share Training in Safety Rating
  155. 155. © 2014 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved. Systemic Safety Analysis Workshop 2017 Transportation and Communities Summit
  156. 156. Introductions Reginald (Reg) Souleyrette PhD, PE University of Kentucky Beth Wemple HDR Brian Chandler, PE, PTOE Leidos Doug Bish PE Oregon Department of Transportation
  157. 157. Agenda Topic Presenter 1:00 Introductions and Overview to Systemic Safety Analysis Beth Wemple, HDR 1:50 Break 2:00 Data Mining and Analysis for Systemic Safety Projects Brian Chandler, Leidos 2:50 Break 3:00 usRAP Systemic Safety Analysis Tool Reg Souleyrette, University of Kentucky 3:50 ODOT ARTS Program Doug Bish, ODOT 4:15 Discussion Beth Wemple
  158. 158. Introduction and Overview to Systemic Safety Analysis
  159. 159. An improvement that is widely implemented based on high-risk roadway features that are correlated with particular severe crash types. What is a Systemic Safety Improvement?
  160. 160. Fatal Crashes in Columbus, OH Region (2012) 7Source: Ohio DOT, GCAT system
  161. 161. 8Source: Ohio DOT, GCAT system Fatal Crashes in Columbus, OH Region (2013)
  162. 162. 9Source: Ohio DOT, GCAT system Fatal Crashes in Columbus, OH Region (2014)
  163. 163. Consistency of Crash Types % of Fatal and Incapacitating Injuries by Crash Type Year Angle Fixed Object Pedestrian Rear-End 2006 21% 23% 12% 14% 2007 19% 23% 12% 14% 2008 23% 21% 13% 10% 2009 19% 21% 11% 12% 2010 20% 22% 13% 11% 10 Source: Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission
  164. 164.  Comprehensive analytical techniques to proactively identify safety improvements  Acknowledges crashes alone are not always sufficient to establish prioritization  Results in inferred prioritization Systemic Approach Severe crash locations are NOT random
  165. 165.  Site Analysis o Identify a network of sites to study o Compile crash data o Evaluate and Rank sites from high to low potential for improvement o Detailed evaluation of individual sites to identify potential treatments  Systemic Analysis o Identifying a crash type to focus on o Identiying a portion of the network to focus on o Studying crashes to identify the common characteristics o Studying the focus facilities to find out where the characteristics occur most frequently o Identifying potential countermeasures o Prioritizing improvements Systemic vs. Spot Specific Analysis
  166. 166. Systemic Safety Analysis Process
  167. 167. Element 1: Systemic Safety Planning Process 14
  168. 168. Systemic Safety Planning Process STEP
  169. 169. Data Needs & Sources  Crashes by system  Crash type  Crashes by facility type  Crash location
  170. 170. Task 1: Identify Focus Crash Type and Focus Facilities 17 New York State DOT Crash Data Disaggregation
  171. 171. New York State DOT Crash Tree Diagram – Roadway Departure, State System Task 2: Select Focus Facilities 18
  172. 172.  State versus local  Rural versus urban  Segment versus intersection  Segment type (freeway, multilane, two-lane, one-way)  Intersection control type (signalized, unsignalized, uncontrolled)  On tangent versus on curve  High-speed versus low-speed  Existing street lighting  District or regions  Traffic volume  Lane width  Shoulder type/width  Alignment  Land use and location Crash Tree Combinations 19
  173. 173. What is a “risk factor”? Characteristics associated with the locations where the targeted crash types occurred:  Volume  Alignment  Intersection Control  Presence of Shoulders Task 3: Identify Risk Factors
  174. 174.  Identify potential risk factors o Roadway and intersection features o Traffic volume o Transit stops, land use, etc.  Evaluate risk factors o Descriptive statistics o Published research  Select final risk factors o Relationship to future crash potential o Relationship between focus crash and facility types Task 3 (cont.): How to Identify Risk Factors
  175. 175. Potential Risk Factors 22
  176. 176. Identify Risk Factors: Descriptive Statistics Analysis (Severe curve-related roadway departure crashes) 23
  177. 177.  Safety Edge on Rural Highways o CMF = 0.92  Pedestrian Countdown Timer o CMF = 0.85  Cycle tracks o CMF = 0.37 for vehicle/bicycle crashes Identify Risk Factors: Crash Modification Factors
  178. 178.  Focus Crash Type  Focus Facility  Risk Factors What do we know now?
  179. 179. Systemic Safety Planning Process STEP
  180. 180.  Site-specific crash data  Basic roadway features Data Needs to Screen & Prioritize Candidate Locations
  181. 181. Task 1: Identify Network Elements to Analyze 28 • Spot-based (curves, intersections) • Segments • Verify selected risk factors
  182. 182. Example Output of Identify Network Elements to Analyze 29
  183. 183. Task 2: Assess Risk Factors 30
  184. 184.  Total the number of risk factors present  Prioritize locations by risk factor totals  Option to assign equal or relative weights  Set threshold for high-priority candidates Task 3: Prioritize Focus Facility Elements 31
  185. 185.  Focus crash type and facility  Prioritized list of sites with risk factors So what do we know now?
  186. 186. Systemic Safety Planning Process STEP
  187. 187. Resources for Assembling the Initial List of Countermeasures  NCHRP Report 500 Series  Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse  Highway Safety Manual  Strategic Highway Safety Plan  Intersection Safety Plans  Roadway Departure Improvement Plans  FHWA’s illustrated guide sheets and proven countermeasures  NHTSA’s Countermeasures That Work  Agency experience / engineering judgment 34
  188. 188. Run Off Road Countermeasures Chevron and Large Arrows Rumble Strips Extension LinesBarrier Delineation Larger Signs
  189. 189. Intersection Countermeasures 36 Change Intersection Type Improve Sight Distance Enhanced Signing and Delineation Street Lighting Dynamic Warning Signs Indirect Turns
  190. 190. Pedestrian Countermeasures
  191. 191. Short List of Countermeasures  Results of the screening / evaluation process  Represents highest priorities  Flexible  Consistent with agency practices and policies
  192. 192.  Focus Crash Type  Focus Facility  Risk Factors  List of Sties with Risk Factors  Set of Countermeasures suitable for the focus crash type and focus facility type What do we know now?
  193. 193. Systemic Safety Planning Process STEP
  194. 194. Example Decision Process for Countermeasure Selection 41
  195. 195.  Apply decision process  Identify specific countermeasures for each candidate site  Document decision process and results Develop Safety Projects
  196. 196. Prioritize Safety Projects 43
  197. 197. Systemic Safety Analysis Process
  198. 198. Systemic Approach to Safety: Using Risk to Drive Action 45 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/systemic
  199. 199. All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) Program Using Federal HSIP funds Doug Bish Traffic Services Engineer Oregon Department of Transportation September 2017
  200. 200. • Projects that Reduce fatalities and serious injuries • Address safety on all public roads • Data-driven safety analysis • Consistent with States Strategic Safety Plan (address Emphasis Areas) • HSIP Yearly Evaluation of Program Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Requirements
  201. 201. • Meet all requirements of HSIP (to be eligible for federal funding) • ODOT engage local agencies in the project selection process • Funding allocation to ODOT Regions based on fatal and serious injury crashes • Combination of Hot Spots and Systemic • Projects selected by ODOT Regions and local agencies • Funding Blind to Jurisdiction ARTS program principles
  202. 202. ARTS program ARTS Hot Spot (50%) Systemic (50%) Roadway Departure (50%) Intersection (36%) Bike/Ped (14%) Numbers in ( ) represent approximate funding split (statewide) • Funds split in half to allow for a combination of reactive (Hot Spot) and proactive (Systemic) safety. • Funds split between Regions based on fatal and serious injury (F&A) crashes • Funds split between Emphasis areas based on relative percent of F&A crashes
  203. 203. • Two prong approach • Hot spot is more the traditional reactive approach to treat high crash locations • Systemic is more the proactive approach and supplements the traditional Hot Spot approach • Both are Data Driven Approaches Hot Spot and Systemic
  204. 204. Hot spot Targets locations with histories of fatal and serious injury crashes
  205. 205. • Crash data by severity and location • Traffic volumes • Safety Priority Index generated for every tenth of a mile • All public roads functional class collector or higher Network Screening – Hot Spot
  206. 206. • Evaluate top SPIS sites – Crash reports and Collison diagrams – Evaluate Crash patterns • Select probable Countermeasures from ODOT approved list • Evaluate crash reduction benefits • Rank based on Benefit/ Cost, create 300-500% list Advance Scoping: Diagnosis, Countermeasure Selection, Benefit/Cost
  207. 207. Hot spot countermeasures (higher cost) Courtesy: FHWA
  208. 208. Systemic Systemic approach uses low-cost countermeasures that can be widely implemented to reduce fatalities and serious injuries
  209. 209. • Crash data by severity and location • Traffic volumes • Basic Roadway features and site characteristics • Emphasis areas: Roadway Departure, Intersections and Ped/Bike • Develop plan of potential corridors with target crashes Network Screening – Systemic
  210. 210. Systemic projects • Systemic Plans for use by agencies submitting applications for Systemic funding (proposals do not have to be from plans)
  211. 211. Determine potential sites (from Plans or other) Evaluate and Field scope sites for projects Complete Application with eligible measures from ODOT CRF list Evaluate benefits and costs Submit Application to ODOT Systemic Project Proposals (advance scoping)
  212. 212. Systemic countermeasures Courtesy: FHWA
  213. 213. Project Selection Applications are refined and prioritized
  214. 214. Evaluate and Prioritize Applications • ODOT evaluate all applications for Hotspot and Systemic projects • Validate countermeasure applicability, scope and cost of projects • Prioritize applications based on benefit cost (ped/bike uses cost effectiveness) • Create 150% lists of potential STIP projects
  215. 215. Refine 150% Lists to get to final STIP Projects • Multi disciplinary scoping of each project - using data gathered previously • Assess field conditions • Refine scope and cost • Reprioritize based on benefit cost • Verify project support with local agencies • Create Final 100% list
  216. 216. How and Why is Systemic helping? • Roadway Departure, Intersections and Ped/Bike areas account for about 90% of all fatal and serious injury crashes • Systemic measures are very cost effective, some more than 100:1 benefit to cost ratio • Roadway Departure crashes have decreased from an average of about 300 fatalities per year to about 200 per year • Updated research on risk factors to help identify potential project locations • Updated Systemic plans to aid location selection
  217. 217. Outcome of First ARTS? • The First ARTS selected projects for 2017- 2021, five years worth of projects. • Some difficulty in delivering the systemic…  Low cost measures  Combine work areas together in order to have enough $ to effectively contract work out  Looking for combining with other types of projects (i.e., pavement preservation)  Some concerns about high % cost of PE/overhead for federal funding project
  218. 218. Biggest areas for Improvement • Low cost measures for narrow rural roads • Improve pedestrian and bicycle project selection • Better tools, easier to use, and provide data faster • Improve process to make the most effective investments
  219. 219. New Transportation Funding • HB 2017 included more funding for cities, counties and ODOT • A number of the 40+ designated projects were Safety projects • The bill included additional safety funds for State Highway only ($10 million, $15 after 2022) • A new Safe Routes to School Program ($10 million per year, $15 million after 2022)
  220. 220. Next ARTS Timeline • The selection process for the next ARTS will occur the fall of 2017 thru the Spring of 2018 • Three years worth of projects will be selected and roughly about $100 million of projects • The process will be very similar to the last ARTS
  221. 221. Thank You For more info, please contact: Doug Bish ODOT Traffic Services Engineer Douglas.W.Bish@odot.state.or.us 503-986-3594
  222. 222. © Leidos. All rights reserved. Data Mining and Analysis for Systemic Safety Projects BRIAN CHANDLER, PE, PTOE, PMP LEIDOS, INC. 1
  223. 223. Oregon Roadway Departure Safety Implementation Plan 2010 - 2017
  224. 224. © Leidos. All rights reserved. 3 Non-intersection crash where crash is off road or involved a lane departure such as: • Struck vehicle on other roadway • Fixed object • Sideswipe meeting • Head-on after crossing median • Failed to maintain lane, or • Ran off road Oregon Definition: Roadway Departure (RwD) Crash
  225. 225. © Leidos. All rights reserved. 4 Why are We Here? Average Annual RwD Fatalities (2013-2015) United States 18,275 Oregon 189
  226. 226. Systemic Approach
  227. 227. © Leidos. All rights reserved. 6
  228. 228. © Leidos. All rights reserved. 7
  229. 229. © Leidos. All rights reserved. 8
  230. 230. © Leidos. All rights reserved. 9 RwD Strategic Approach 1 • Keep Vehicles on Roadway 2 • Provide for Safe Recovery 3 • Reduce Crash Severity
  231. 231. © Leidos. All rights reserved. 10 Methods for Reducing RwD Crashes Traditional • Highly effective • Individual section analysis required • Expensive • Relatively few improvements • Minimal statewide impact Systemic • Starts with solutions • Solves targeted crash types • Low cost • Identify over- representation • Impacts entire system Policy / Systematic • Identify other risk factors (traffic volume, geometry, etc.) • Not “safety project” anymore – it becomes the norm
  232. 232. Crash Data Analysis Example: Curves
  233. 233. © Leidos. All rights reserved. 12 Method 1. Calculate average severity by crash type. 2. Identify segments to treat based on overall crashes (all severities).  Find over-representation 3. Apply average severity to estimate benefit.  Crashes reduced, injuries/fatalities prevented.
  234. 234. © Leidos. All rights reserved. 13 Curve Treatments – Level 1 MUTCD minimum
  235. 235. © Leidos. All rights reserved. 14 Severity Treatment Total RwD Crashes Fatalities Level A Injuries Severity Fatal Severity A-Injury Curve Level 1 7,026 255 630 3.62% 8.94%
  236. 236. © Leidos. All rights reserved. 15 Clusters Crashes per Section Number of Sections Cumulative Cumulative Sections Percent Crashes Percent > 50 - - - - - 30 - 49 4 4 0% 144 1% 20 - 29 9 13 0% 359 3% 10 - 19 68 81 1% 1,215 9% 5 - 9 363 444 6% 3,451 25% 4 310 754 11% 4,691 34% 3 659 1,413 20% 6,668 48% 2 1,659 3,072 44% 9,986 72% 1 3,954 7,026 100% 13,940 100% Total 7,026 7,026 100% 13,940 100%
  237. 237. © Leidos. All rights reserved. 16 Thresholds Crashes per Section Number of Sections Cumulative Cumulative Sections Percent Crashes Percent > 50 - - - - - 30 - 49 4 4 0% 144 1% 20 - 29 9 13 0% 359 3% 10 - 19 68 81 1% 1,215 9% 5 - 9 363 444 6% 3,451 25% 4 310 754 11% 4,691 34% 3 659 1,413 20% 6,668 48% 2 1,659 3,072 44% 9,986 72% 1 3,954 7,026 100% 13,940 100% Total 7,026 7,026 100% 13,940 100% Cost Benefit
  238. 238. © Leidos. All rights reserved. 17 Safety Impact Crashes per Section Number of Sections Cumulative Cumulative Sections Percent Crashes Percent > 50 - - - - - 30 - 49 4 4 0% 144 1% 20 - 29 9 13 0% 359 3% 10 - 19 68 81 1% 1,215 9% 5 - 9 363 444 6% 3,451 25% 4 310 754 11% 4,691 34% 3 659 1,413 20% 6,668 48% 2 1,659 3,072 44% 9,986 72% 1 3,954 7,026 100% 13,940 100% Total 7,026 7,026 100% 13,940 100% Description MUTCD Minimum Crash Type Targeted RwD on curved alignment, failed to negotiate curve Severity (Fatal) 0.036175 Severity (Severe Injury) 0.089374 Cost $10,000 CMF 0.7 Threshold Crash Level (6 Years) Number of Sections Number of Crashes in 6 Years (2009-2014) Estimated Number of Improvements Construction Costs ($ Million) Annual Targeted Crash Reduction Annual Estimated Fatality Reduction Annual Estimated Severe Injury Reduction Cost/Life Saved ($ Million) 3 1,413 6,668 848 $8.48 200.04 7.24 17.88 $1.17
  239. 239. © Leidos. All rights reserved. 18 Oregon RwD Implementation Plan Countermeasure Threshold Crash Level (6 Years) Number of Crashes in 6 Years (2009-2014) Estimated Number of Improvements Construction Costs ($ Million) Annual Targeted Crash Reduction Annual Estimated Fatality Reduction Annual Estimated Severe Injury Reduction Cost/Life Saved ($ Million) State Curve treatment - Level 2 3 7,673 941 $4.70 268.56 8.70 22.06 $0.54 Curve treatment - Level 3 16 1,007 29 $2.58 47.58 1.54 3.91 $1.68 Centerline Rumble Stripes 3 5,847 1,057 $1.90 343.02 11.84 30.15 $0.16 Edge Line Rumble Strip(e)s 3 7,635 1,177 $3.53 320.67 7.98 18.72 $0.44 Delineation - Rural 5 1,346 164 $0.82 26.92 0.69 1.46 $1.18 Delineation - Urban 3 413 83 $0.42 8.26 0.12 0.40 $3.34 Tree Removal/Shielding 3 242 59 $0.74 16.13 1.02 1.76 $0.72 Utility Pole Removal/Shielding - Rural 6 24 2 $0.16 0.80 0.02 0.05 $7.97 Utility Pole Removal/Shielding - Urban 4 4 0 $0.04 0.13 0.00 0.01 $17.05 High Friction Surface Treatment (HFST) 11 582 17 $1.45 36.38 0.84 2.31 $1.71 Alcohol Enforcement - Rural 5 15 1 $0.02 0.20 0.05 0.05 $0.53 Alcohol Enforcement - Urban 6 25 2 $0.03 0.33 0.03 0.04 $1.05 Speed Enforcement - Rural 18 414 8 $0.15 4.14 0.09 0.23 $1.67 Speed Enforcement - Urban 18 145 2 $0.05 1.45 0.02 0.06 $3.07 Non-State Curve treatment - Level 1 3 6,668 848 $8.48 200.04 7.24 17.88 $1.17 Curve treatment - Level 2 5 3,451 311 $3.11 120.79 4.37 10.80 $0.71 Curve treatment - Level 3 19 378 10 $0.88 17.86 0.65 1.60 $1.37 Centerline Rumble Stripes 3 5,761 519 $1.87 168.99 3.88 13.74 $0.48 Edge Line Rumble Strip(e)s 4 2,196 246 $1.48 79.06 1.91 4.95 $0.77 Delineation - Rural 7 450 37 $0.37 9.00 0.26 0.73 $1.41 Delineation - Urban 7 3,014 222 $2.22 60.28 0.55 2.13 $4.01 Tree Removal/Shielding 4 146 26 $0.64 9.73 0.62 1.25 $1.02 Utility Pole Removal/Shielding - Rural 7 14 1 $0.08 0.47 0.01 0.03 $6.10 Utility Pole Removal/Shielding - Urban 8 16 1 $0.08 0.53 0.01 0.02 $10.59 Alcohol Enforcement - Rural 4 38 6 $0.13 1.01 0.16 0.28 $0.81 Alcohol Enforcement - Urban 5 128 18 $0.37 3.41 0.13 0.27 $2.76 Speed Enforcement - Rural 11 183 10 $0.19 3.66 0.11 0.31 $1.78 Speed Enforcement - Urban 11 67 4 $0.08 1.34 0.02 0.06 $4.05 Total $36.57 1,751 53 135
  240. 240. Brian Chandler, PE, PTOE, PMP chandlerbe@leidos.com 206-850-3480 www.linkedin.com/in/brianchandler www.twitter.com/trafficsafety www.amazon.com/author/brianchandler

×