Center for Accelerating Innovation Re duc ing Rur al Roadway De par tur e s E ve r y Day Counts Round 5 1 Center for Accelerating Innovation T oday’s Pr e se nte r s Dick Albin Cate Satterfield Road Safety Engineer Roadway Safety Engineer, FHWA, Resource Center FHWA Office of Safety Safety & Design Technical Service Team Crete, IL Olympia, Washington Scott Davis Mike Meeks Traffic Engineering & Traffic Engineer Operations Manager, Thurston County, WA Franklin County, OH 2 1
Center for Accelerating Innovation What is “Every Day Counts” (EDC)? State-based model to identify and rapidly deploy proven but underutilized innovations to: shorten the project delivery process enhance roadway safety reduce congestion improve environmental sustainability EDC Rounds: two year cycles Initiating 5 th Round (2019-2020) - 10 innovations To date: 4 Rounds, over 40 innovations For more information: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/ FAST Act, Sec.1444 3 Center for Accelerating Innovation Reduce the potential for serious injury and fatal T he Mission roadway departure crashes on all public r ur al oads by increasing the systemic deployment of r proven countermeasures. Why? RRwD = 1/3 traffic deaths How? What? 4 2
Center for Accelerating Innovation T he Rur al RwD Compone nt of F atalitie s Rural RwD 11,874 34% 5 Source: NHTSA FARS (2014 – 2016 Annual Average) Center for Accelerating Innovation What is a Roadway De par tur e (RwD)? FHWA Definition: A crash in which a vehicle crosses an edge line, a center line, or otherwise leaves the traveled way. Photo credit: FHWA Photo credit: Oregon State Police 6 3
Center for Accelerating Innovation Pe r c e nt Rur al RwD F atalitie s 44 (NH) 34 66 (VT) 65 69 55 52 5 (MA) 39 60 26 63 44 10 (RI) 63 27 12 (CT) 37 48 10 (NJ) 47 31 21 31 (DE) 27 39 32 26 33 54 16 (MD) 46 48 40 54 0 (DC) 45 36 43 22 41 37 51 27 46 53 36 32 > 50% average 45 35% - 50% 17 average 20% - 34% 16 average < 20% average 7 2014-2016 Annual Average of Rural Roadway Departures Source: FARS Center for Accelerating Innovation Rur al RwD F atalitie s 51 (NH) 178 36 (VT) 97 140 70 225 17 (MA) 153 130 282 82 248 5 (RI) 86 262 34 (CT) 446 167 58 (NJ) 107 334 67 38 (DE) 265 312 86 862 182 145 80 (MD) 342 186 344 411 0 (DC) 612 354 284 197 382 132 267 371 417 363 267 1163 > 500 fatalities 300-499 fatalities 33 100-299 fatalities 480 25-99 fatalities 16 < 25 fatalities 8 2014-2016 Annual Average of Rural Roadway Departures Source: FARS 4
Center for Accelerating Innovation Why all public r oads? Interstate Local Roads typically 10% 16% maintained by states = 55% of Minor Collector Rural RwD fatalities Other 6% Principal Arterial 26% Roads typically Major maintained by Collector 23% locals = 45% of Rural RwD fatalities Minor Arterial 19% 9 2014-2016 Annual Average of Rural Roadway Departures Source: FARS Center for Accelerating Innovation F Y2019 High Risk Rur al Roads Spe c ial Rule Section 148(g)(1) of 23 U.S.C. State Amount State Amount Alabama $4,124,978 Montana $1,389,760 Nevada $1,487,814 Alaska $900,000 New Mexico $1,887,424 Colorado $2,826,084 Oregon $2,440,120 Georgia $6,299,452 Pennsylvania $5,766,894 Idaho $1,294,798 South Dakota $1,517,100 Illinois $6,048,546 Utah $1,331,318 Kentucky $2,879,986 Virginia $4,459,774 Louisiana $3,085,174 Washington $3,144,572 10 5
Center for Accelerating Innovation Why do dr ive r s le ave the r oadway? Roadway Condition Collision Avoidanc e Polling Que stion Dr ive r E r r or Ve hic le Compone nt F ailur e Photo credit: FHWA 11 Center for Accelerating Innovation Cr ashe s Cause d by Var ious F ac tor s 3% 27% 57% Driver 93% Roadway 34% 3% 1% 6% Humans are the weakest link so we Vehicle 12% must design around human 2% needs. 12 From: Lum & Reagan, Public Roads Magazine, Winter 1995, “Interactive Highway Safety Design Module” 6
Center for Accelerating Innovation 13 Center for Accelerating Innovation How? Systemic Analysis • What? Safety action plans • How? Deployment based • Why? on risk factors RRwD = 1/3 traffic deaths Systemic Deployment 14 7
Center for Accelerating Innovation Whe r e would you inve st safe ty funds? 2014 2015 2012 2013 2016 Center for Accelerating Innovation Most Har mful E ve nt in Fatal Crashes 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Motor Vehicle In-Transport 289 249 267 388 373 Tree & Shrub (Standing Only) 158 149 155 153 163 Rollover/Overturn 132 136 142 159 161 Pedestrian 110 97 100 121 137 Embankment & Ditch 29 23 18 17 22 Utility Pole/Light & Sign Support 25 30 15 23 21 Traffic Barrier 16 7 18 16 14 Fire/Explosion 14 5 12 13 14 Pedalcyclist 13 15 14 16 25 Other Object (not fixed) 9 12 12 11 15 Culvert 8 5 8 10 7 Other Fixed Object 8 8 18 10 15 Parked Motor Vehicle 7 4 4 4 5 Live Animal 5 3 3 7 2 Curb 5 2 5 4 3 16 Source: FARS 8
Center for Accelerating Innovation Fatal crash locations are r andom 17 Source: Pexels Fatal crash types are Center for Accelerating Innovation pr e dic table 18 Source: Pixabay 9
Center for Accelerating Innovation Syste mic Safe ty Impr ove me nts An improvement that is widely Syste mic implemented based on high-risk • Based on Risk roadway features that are • Correlated with correlated with particular severe particular severe crash types crash types. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/systemic/index.htm 19 Center for Accelerating Innovation Poll que stion What are risk factors that you consider for roadway • departures? 20 10
Center for Accelerating Innovation Rur al Roadway De par tur e F atalitie s by Most Har mful E ve nt Head-On 3,354 28% Trees 2,312 Rollover 19% 3,609 30% 21 2014-2016 Annual Average of Rural RwDs by MHE Source: FARS Center for Accelerating Innovation Highe r Spe e d is a Risk F ac tor Rur al RwD fatalitie s whe r e spe e d limit is > 50 MPH Rollover 78% Head-On 84% Tree 63% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 22 2014-2016 Annual Average of Rural Roadway Departures Source: FARS 11
Center for Accelerating Innovation Cur ve s ar e a Risk F ac tor Cur ve -r e late d Rur al RwD F atalitie s Rollover 44% 32% Head-On 50% Tree 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 23 2014-2016 Annual Average of Rural Roadway Departures Source: FARS Center for Accelerating Innovation State Str ate gic Highway Safe ty Plan (SHSP) SAF E T Y ACT ION PL ANS • Regional Plans • Local Plans • Other Plans • Tribal Plans Other State Local funding HSIP Highway sources funds 24 HSIP: 23USC 148(c), 23 CFR 924.7 12
Center for Accelerating Innovation 25 Center for Accelerating Innovation Minne sota E xample Other Roads Municipal Roads 6% 7% State Trunk Highways County 51% Highways 36% 2015 Fatalities by Roadway in Minnesota 26 13
Center for Accelerating Innovation Minne sota Re sults 2.00 Begin Widespread County System Begin Deployment of Preparation of State Highway System 1.80 Safety Strategies County Roadway Interstate System Along County 1.60 Safety Plans System 1.40 Fatality Rate* 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Year 27 Source: Mark Vizecky, MnDOT Center for Accelerating Innovation T ar ge t ze r o Washington State County Road Safety 28 14
Center for Accelerating Innovation Washington State Safe ty F ac ts Counties maintain 47% of the road miles in Washington State 16% of the total vehicle miles traveled occur on County roads The fatal crash rate is two times higher on county roads than on state highways. 29 Center for Accelerating Innovation How doe s Washington State suppor t loc al r oad safe ty? Provides training State City 30% 40% Provides information County 30% Provides 70% HSIP funding to local agencies Percent Fatal & Serious Collisions Over $200 million awarded to locals since 2009 30 15
Center for Accelerating Innovation Cr ash Infor mation Provided by DOT First Step in process Easy to Use Can quickly ID priorities 31 Center for Accelerating Innovation County Road Safe ty Pr ogr am Re sults Over 80% of Washington State Counties have local road safety plans now All the plans were completed by county staff For more information contact Matthew Enders at EndersM@wsdot.wa.gov or visit http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/LocalPrograms/Traffic/FedSafety.htm 32 16
Center for Accelerating Innovation L oc al Road Safe ty Plans 33 Center for Accelerating Innovation Many Data Sour c e s “Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.” – Theodore Roosevelt Crash Roadway Traffic Volume Safety Data Maintenance Enforcement Logs Road Safety Audits 34 17
Center for Accelerating Innovation Quantitative Cr ash Analysis Me thods 35 Center for Accelerating Innovation Qualitative Appr oac h to Risk Use qualitative ratings when needed: • Go o d, F air, No t-S o -Go o d (c urve radius, ro adside , e tc .) • H igh, Me dium, L o w (traffic vo lume s, pe de strian vo lume s, c rash fre que nc y, e tc .) It is important to include the risk factors that are key to your roadway network 36 18
Recommend
More recommend
