SHRP2 Successes: Lessons Learned from the Field Improving Pedestrian - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Florida Department of Transportation SHRP2 Successes: Lessons Learned from the Field Improving Pedestrian Safety through SHRP2’s Naturalistic Driving Study Joe Santos, State Safety Engineer Florida Department of Transportation August 30, 2016 Greenbrier, WV Center for Urban Transportation Research Center for Urban Transportation Research Florida Department of Transportation University of South Florida University of South Florida

Improving Safety Through SHRP2

SHRP2 Safety Program Consists of Two Large Databases: • Naturalistic driving study (NDS) database; and • Roadway Information Database (RID) Naturalistic Driving Study (NDS): • Crash, pre-crash, near- crash, and “normal” driving data • 3,500+ drivers, 6 sites, all ages Roadway Information Database (RID): • NDS trip data can be linked to roadway data from the RID, such as the roadway location, curvature, grade, lane widths, and intersection characteristics. • These two databases will support innovative research leading to new insights into crash causation. 3

SHRP2 Implementation Assistance Program (IAP) Main Objectives • Utilize IAP to demonstrate the use of the NDS Safety Data • Increase states’ understanding of the potential uses of the data • Identify safety countermeasures based on research projects • Reduce crashes and save lives ! | 4

IAP Safety Process Phase 1 – Proof of concept with a sample reduced data set Phase 2 – full data set and in-depth research analysis with countermeasure identification Phase 3 – deployment to adopt, champion or implement countermeasure nationally | 5

On Ongo going ing Sa Safety ty Pr Projects jects Phase 2 In-Depth Research and Analysis Projects Pedestrian Safety Florida DOT Roadway Departures Iowa DOT Speeding Michigan DOT Washington State DOT Work Zones Minnesota DOT Horizontal and Vertical Curves North Carolina DOT Interchange Ramps Utah DOT Adverse Conditions Wyoming DOT Roadway Lighting Washington State DOT | 6

FHWA/AASHTO Resources • FHWA SHRP2 website: fhwa.dot.gov/goSHRP2 • AASHTO SHRP2 website: SHRP2.transportation.org – Implementation information for AASHTO members – Information about SHRP2 safety implementation • Safety Implementation Managers: – Aladdin Barkawi, FHWA: aladdin.barkawi@dot.gov – Kelly Hardy, AASHTO: khardy@aashto.org 7

Pedestrian Safety Problem in Florida  Florida experienced serious pedestrian safety problems.  Florida continues to be in the top five states with the highest pedestrian fatality rates.  Florida has the top four metro areas with the highest Pedestrian Danger Index. (Dangerous by Design 2014) Source: NHSTA FARS 8

Florida’s Pedestrian Strategic Safety Plan One of Florida’s highest priorities is to investigate major contributing causes for pedestrian crashes and develop effective countermeasures . 9

Pedestrian Safety Facts at Signalized Intersections  High traffic and pedestrian volumes  Frequent pedestrian-vehicle conflicts Pedestrian Fatal Crashes by Location Pedestrian Crashes by Location in Florida in Florida Signalized Signalized Intersection , Intersection, 47% 31% Other, 53% Other, 69% Source: FDOT Research Report - Comprehensive study to reduce pedestrian crashes in Florida 10

Driver Behavior and Safety Driver behavior is the primary factor contributing to a crash. Index of unsafe driving (risk index): • Rule violation • Speeding (or unsafe speed) • Impaired driving (alcohol-involved) • Distraction • Not wearing seat-belt …… Source: Human Factors & Highway Safety, Elizabeth Alicandri, FHWA Office of Safety Programs 11

Main Pedestrian Features of Study Stop before stop line Stop Here on Red on red Stop on red, No Turn on Red wait for green signal Turning Vehicles Yield Yield to pedestrians to Pedestrians on red or green Right on Red Arrow Stop, observe, and after Stop turn on red 12

Research Question and Goals  Major Research Question: How do drivers interact with pedestrian features at signalized intersections?  Research Goals: • To investigate the interactions between drivers and pedestrian features using the SHRP2 NDS and RID data • To demonstrate success in accomplishing initial data analysis • To demonstrate that the research team effectively used the SHRP2 NDS and RID databases 13

Data Sources  SHRP2-RID Dataset o Lanes: number, width, and type o Signs: MUTCD o Intersections: location, control, etc. o Median type and presence o AADT(Annual Average Daily Traffic)  SHRP2-NDS Dataset (2700 trips) o Front Video Data o Sensor Data: Speed, acceleration o Supplementary Data:  Driver characteristics  Driver questionnaires 14 14

Data Acquired  Study Sites o 12 Signalized intersections in Tampa Bay ( 4 Features ) o 2 Feature sites + 1 Control sites for each pedestrian feature  Short Trips o 270 trips for each feature group o 270 trips for each control group o Total 2,160 trips o 439 participants  Long Trips o 54 participants o Total 270 trips 15 15

T ool Development  NDS Automatic Video Processing Tool • To automatically detect and track pedestrians • To automatically detect traffic signal indications NDS Data Reduction and Analysis Tool 16 16

Analysis Results 17

Interactions between drivers and different pedestrian features Non-compliant Behaviors Compliant Behaviors 100% Proportion of Compliant Behaviors 10 27 3 (30%) 5 80% (33%) (33%) (45%) 60% 40% 23 6 54 (70%) 6 (67%) (67%) (55%) 20% 0% Stop Here on Red No Turn on Red Turning Vehicles Yield Right on Red Arrow to Pedestrians after Stop Pedestrian Feature Signs 18

Comparison of compliant behaviors with/without pedestrian presence Control Group Feature Group 100% Proportion of Compliant 20 (77%) 69 80% (67%) 7 Behaviors 60% (50%) 27 40% (29%) 20% Data Analysis 0% Results Without Pedestrians* With Pedestrians *Statistically significant at a confidence level of 95% 19

Comparison of risk and distraction levels by gender and age groups Female Male 16-24 24-59 60+ Percentage of Drivers in a Group Percentage of Drivers in a Group 100% 100% 80% 80% 122 102 51 91 60% 112 (53%) 60% (49%) 80 41 (47%) (45%) (48%) 71 (39%) (39%) (34%) 40% 40% 10 7 20% (14%) 20% (10%) 0% 0% Risk Group Distraction Group* Risk Group* Distraction Group* *Statistically significant at a confidence level of 95% *Statistically significant at a confidence level of 95% 20

Comparison of compliant behaviors by gender and age groups 100% 24 Proportion of Compliant Behaviors (83%) 42 11 80% 47 (69%) 54 (69%) (64%) (61%) 60% 40% 20% 0% Female Male 16 - 24 25 - 59 60 + Gender Age* *Statistically significant at a confidence level of 90% 21

Findings of Pilot Study Increased Likelihood of Compliance Traffic Sign (Pedestrian Feature) Compliance Compared to Rate a Control Group No turn on red 70% Turning vehicles 67% yield to pedestrians Right on red arrow 67% after stop Stop here on red 55% 22 22

Conclusions of Pilot Study  As proof of concept, the pilot project was successful.  Data availability, sample size, and complexity were identified.  Specific parameters for data extraction and analysis tools were developed.  Study methodology was proven.  Initial results are encouraging. 23 23

Future Work and Countermeasure Development  Phase II is currently underway.  CUTR and FDOT will develop implementable countermeasures. • E ngineering : policy/practice for implementation • E ducation : outreach/campaigns to focus on specific demographics of drivers • E nforcement : pedestrian and bicycle laws • C ombined engineering, education, and enforcement approaches 24

Questions Joe Santos, PE Florida Department of Transportation Joseph.Santos@dot.state.fl.us Center for Urban Transportation Research Florida Department of Transportation University of South Florida 25 25